RECRUTADOR
After the interview

Every score with the evidence behind it.

When the interview ends, the report is already there: signal and depth per criterion, the candidate's own words as proof, and a summary to decide on. No magic score. The decision is yours, with the evidence behind it to back the call later with a partner, manager, or client.

  • A signal per criterion, with the candidate's words as proof
  • No magic score: evidence is words, not a number
  • The audit trail of the hire, as PDF or link
Post-interview report Confidence: High
Gustavo Pontes Gym Instructor (Personal Trainer)
Evidence for your call·you decide
Strong Safety and Correct Exercise Execution Validated

“I saw the member's knee caving inward on the squat. I stopped the set right there an…”

Strong Training Personalization and Adaptation Specific

“A member with knee pain couldn't do leg press. I swapped it for light-load free squa…”

Mixed Equipment Hygiene and Cleaning Surface

“I wipe the machines with alcohol between members when there's time”

Mixed Communication and Constructive Feedback Specific

“I don't just say redo it. I film the execution and show the member exactly where to…”

Generated by Recrutador.com
A real report

Every score with the candidate's own words behind it

This is a real report generated by Recrutador, from an interview for a Gym Instructor role. Each criterion carries the depth it was probed to, the quality of the evidence, and the candidate's own words.

Download a sample report (PDF)
TESSA CORP Post-interview report

Gustavo Pontes

Gym Instructor (Personal Trainer) · May 24, 2026

Synthesis

From the candidate's account, the profile is solid for the instructor role. Safety in execution and training personalization stand out as strengths, with tested examples. Communication with members and equipment hygiene come across as adequate but less deeply probed. Proactivity on improvements and formal technical updating are the weakest points and warrant confirmation. Overall, the evidence supports a good fit, with clear gaps to check.

Measures
ConfidenceHigh
Coverage 7 of 7 criteria
Depth 71
Consistency 100
Adherence 75
Interview health
Criteria assessed7 of 7
Candidate talk time63%
Degraded modeNo
What the interview evidenced

The candidate's words, per criterion. Signal and depth come from the analysis; the text is what they said.

Priority Strong Safety and Correct Exercise Execution Validated

“I saw the member's knee caving inward on the squat. I stopped the set right there and dropped the load before letting him continue.”

False negative risk: Low. Evidence was stress-tested at Challenge depth.

Priority Strong Training Personalization and Adaptation Specific

“A member with knee pain couldn't do leg press. I swapped it for light-load free squats and in three weeks he was training pain-free again.”

False negative risk: Low. Evidence was obtained but not stress-tested. A capable candidate may have been under-probed.

Priority Mixed Equipment Hygiene and Cleaning Surface

“I wipe the machines with alcohol between members when there's time”

False negative risk: Medium. The criterion wasn't probed past Investigation depth. A capable candidate could have been missed.

Priority Mixed Communication and Constructive Feedback Specific

“I don't just say redo it. I film the execution and show the member exactly where to fix it.”

False negative risk: Medium. Evidence was obtained but not stress-tested. A capable candidate may have been under-probed.

Priority Weak Proactivity and Improvement Suggestions Surface

“once I suggested rescheduling peak hours to ease the floor”

False negative risk: High. The criterion wasn't probed past Investigation depth. A capable candidate could have been missed.

Priority Strong Commitment and Reliability Specific

“I stayed four years with the same members. When one went quiet, I'd call. Showing up is the result of care, not luck.”

False negative risk: Low. Evidence was obtained but not stress-tested. A capable candidate may have been under-probed.

Priority Weak Technical Updating and Methodologies Surface

“I took a functional-training course last year”

False negative risk: High. The criterion wasn't probed past Investigation depth. A capable candidate could have been missed.

StrongMixedWeakNo evidenceNot addressedContrary evidence

AI analysis is decision support, not the decision. No fit score: the evidence is what the candidate said, not a number.

Next steps
  1. Ask for examples of technical updating and certifications in newer methodologies.
  2. Explore proactivity with a real case of an improvement proposed and carried through.
  3. Confirm the cleaning routine by asking for the step-by-step protocol.
Limits of this reading
  • The hygiene routine was described superficially, with no detailed protocol. Worth confirming the concrete daily steps.
  • Proactivity came out with weak evidence: the candidate mentioned initiatives but didn't detail how they were carried through.
  • Technical updating rests on a limited base: there's a recent course but no formal certification in the latest methodologies.

This document presents evidence for the decision. It does not recommend hiring or not hiring. The decision is yours.

Generated by Recrutador.com

Stop hiring on improvisation.

Start hiring on evidence. Your first role is on us: 1 role, 3 resume analyses and 15 minutes of live interview, good for 30 days. No subscription, no card.

See pricing