Most candidate interviews never end with a complete scorecard.

Our data shows only 31% of candidate interviews had any scorecard attached. Of the scorecards that were created, 32% were complete, and 26% were blank.¹

The clearest gap in the data is between scorecards written from scratch and those where Metaview prepared the first draft. Interviewers submitted 28.6% of the scorecards they wrote themselves, compared with 50.3% of those Metaview drafted.

The drafted scorecards also contained 7.85 completed fields on average, compared with 2.61 for those written manually.¹

This was an observational comparison, not a controlled experiment. Teams using generated drafts may also have different processes. Even so, the size of the gap suggests that starting with a draft removes a meaningful barrier.

Why scorecards get left behind

The interview might end, but the day is far from over. You've still got another call, a debrief, or a full inbox waiting. The scorecard is easy to push to later, to the back of a heavy load.

The details are less clear by the time you get back to it. Writing from memory takes longer, and the feedback usually gets thinner.

Reminders prompt interviewers to complete the scorecard, but they don't make it easier

The interviewer still has to reconstruct the conversation from notes and memory.

Missing feedback causes problems later too. Debriefs have less evidence to work with, and quality-of-hire analysis becomes harder when the interview record is incomplete.

What changes when Metaview drafts first

Metaview changes what the interviewer does after the call. Instead of building the scorecard from scratch, they start with a draft based on the conversation.

A first draft makes the task much easier

Instead of starting from a blank scorecard, the interviewer reviews the evidence, corrects any mistakes, adds their judgment, and submits it.

The improvement is significant, but it does not eliminate the problem. A 50.3% submission rate still means nearly half of the drafts are never completed. Metaview removes the blank page, but the team still needs to review, refine, and submit the scorecard.

The two groups weren't randomly assigned. Teams using generated drafts may also have clearer processes or stronger expectations. The findings show a strong association, not proof that drafting caused the entire difference.

How the workflow works

Metaview’s AI Notetaker records the interview and prepares notes against the team’s template.

• Metaview captures the evidence: It links the draft back to what the candidate said.
• The interviewer checks the draft: They correct errors, remove anything irrelevant, and add context.
• People make the judgment: Recruiters and hiring managers still choose the rating and recommendation.

Different stages can use different templates. A recruiter screen, technical interview, and final panel should not all produce the same notes.

What a fuller interview record makes possible

More complete scorecards give teams a clearer record of what happened in the interview. That improves debriefs, coaching, and later analysis, provided the evidence is accurate and properly reviewed.

Completion is only the first check

A full scorecard can still be vague, inaccurate, or accepted without enough review. Teams should also check whether the evidence is specific, whether interviewers edited the generated draft, and whether each rating can be traced back to the conversation.

This includes:

• More grounded debriefs: People can check the interview evidence rather than relying solely on memory.
• Better interviewer coaching: You can compare what interviewers asked, what they captured, and how they scored it (read more about what separates a good interviewer from a bad one).
• Cleaner analysis: Where post-hire data exists, teams have a more complete interview record to compare with later performance.
• A clearer decision trail: A timestamped record is easier to review than feedback reconstructed days later.

What to measure

A single completion rate won't tell you where the process is failing. You need to track each stage separately so you can see whether the problem is missing scorecards, unfinished drafts, slow feedback, or weak evidence.

Start with the last 90 days

Keep the measures separate so you can see exactly where the process breaks:

• Coverage: What percentage of candidate interviews had any scorecard attached?
• Submission: Of the scorecards created or generated, how many were submitted?
• Completeness: How many submitted scorecards were complete, partial, or blank?
• Feedback time: How long after the interview was the scorecard submitted?
• Draft review: Did the interviewer review and edit generated fields before submitting?
• Evidence quality: Does each rating include specific, job-relevant evidence that can be checked against the conversation?

Metaview Reports tracks completion and feedback timing by interviewer and role. For the time to fill guide.

Don't collapse these into one completion rate

A team can have good coverage and poor submission, or high submission and weak evidence. Those are different problems and need different fixes.

¹ Source: Metaview’s corpus of 5.5 million captured conversations (5.2 million candidate interviews), 2026. The 31% figure counts candidate interviews with any scorecard attached. Submission rates compare 26,498 scorecards written by interviewers with 93,502 scorecards where Metaview generated the first draft. Field counts and completeness figures come from platform samples. All findings are aggregate.