Owner: HR & People Lead (Anam) — process owner · HOD (Hamza) owns technical review, Round 2 scoring & tier sign-off
Status: Active
Last Updated: June 2026
Part of: AIS Master Service Documentation
Referenced by: AIS_Phase1_Resource_Acquisition_v2.md
This SOP is the step-by-step operating guide for running the AIS screening process. It is used by HR, Senior Developers, and the HOD. It covers:
Everything in this SOP feeds into Phase 1 Resource Acquisition. The upstream process (sourcing channels, contracting, pool entry, track routing) lives in AIS_Phase1_Resource_Acquisition_v2.md. The scoring rubric lives in AIS_Screening_Rubric.md. This document is the operational how-to that sits between them.
One rule that never changes: No candidate proceeds to any screening stage without completing the previous one. No skipping, no shortcuts, regardless of referral source or perceived seniority.
| Role | Responsibilities in screening |
|---|---|
| HR — Anam | Application triage (HR checklist), all candidate communication, agreement issue and collection, document verification, interview scheduling, outcome messaging, pool-record keeping |
| HOD — Hamza | Round 1 assignment review, Round 2 interview, rubric scoring, tier classification, tier sign-off, track routing decision |
| Legal — Habiba | Drafts the Candidate Agreement (referenced at Stage 3) |
| Senior Developer | May co-lead Round 1 review or Round 2 with the HOD where assigned |
Application / Referral received
↓
[HR] Triage against HR checklist
↓
[HR] Intake form + 2-min video issued → reviewed
↓
[HOD] Intake decision: Proceed / Hold / Decline
↓
[HR] Candidate Agreement issued → signed → returned
↓
[HR] Document & profile verification
↓
[Sr Dev / HOD] Round 1 assignment handed over → submitted → reviewed
↓
[Sr Dev / HOD] Round 1 decision: Pass / Fail
↓
[HR] Round 2 scheduled
↓
[Sr Dev / HOD] Round 2 live interview conducted → scored
↓
[HOD] Gate + tier confirmed → Accept / Reject / Hold
↓
[HR] Outcome communicated → pool entry recorded (if accepted)
Trigger: Application received from any sourcing channel (job platform, team referral, partner org).
Owner: HR
Time limit: Review within 2 business days of receipt.
All items are assessed from the application, CV/resume, and any linked profiles (LinkedIn, GitHub). This is a quick filter — no deep review yet.
| # | Criterion | Pass means |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | AI or automation development experience | CV or profile shows hands-on AI/automation work — not just coursework or certificates |
| 2 | Familiarity with REMAP's core stack | At least one tool from: n8n, OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini APIs, LangChain, RAG pipelines, vector databases, Docker, Node.js, Python, Next.js |
| 3 | English communication adequate | Written English in application and/or profile is coherent. Spoken English will be verified at intake video and interview. |
| 4 | Availability alignment | Available full-time (160 hrs/month) or part-time (80 hrs/month), or open to either |
| 5 | Professional profile present | At least one verifiable profile exists — LinkedIn or GitHub — with visible activity |
| 6 | No obvious red flags | No signs of fabrication, copy-paste resume, or conduct issues from application |
Checklist result:
Note on team referrals: Existing REMAP staff referred as candidates still go through the full triage and screening process. The referral adds context but does not bypass any step.
Trigger: HR checklist passed.
Owner: HR issues; Candidate completes; HOD reviews and decides.
Deadline for candidate: 3 business days from issue date.
Send the candidate the Intake Form link (or document) with the following instructions:
"This form takes around 10–15 minutes. Alongside the form, please submit a short 2-minute video — a quick introduction and a walkthrough of one project you have built. A screen recording or webcam clip is fine. There is no commitment at this stage."
Log the issue date against the candidate record.
Review the completed form and video against the following:
| Area | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Experience claims | Do total years and AI years make sense together? Are claimed tools consistent with the project descriptions? |
| Project quality | Are these real delivered projects (live, deployed, or clearly client-work)? Or vague/tutorial-level descriptions? |
| Tech stack | Does the stack match what REMAP needs? Red flags: only very narrow tooling, or tools that are outdated and nothing current. |
| Video — spoken English | Can they hold a clear technical conversation? Is delivery natural or obviously reading/scripted? |
| Video — communication style | Are they clear, structured, honest? Or vague, over-polished, evasive? |
| Self-assessment (Section 6) | Do ratings seem honest relative to project descriptions? Gross overstatement is a red flag; slight overconfidence is normal. |
| Compensation expectation | Is it within band? If not stated, note for later. |
| Decision | What it means | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| Proceed | Profile is a plausible fit; spend time on agreement and assignment | HR issues Candidate Agreement |
| Hold | One specific gap — check with HOD; may add a note to follow up in 30–60 days | Log and set reminder |
| Decline | Not a fit at this stage | HR sends decline email |
HOD sign-off required before Proceed is confirmed. HR does not issue the Candidate Agreement without HOD approval.
Trigger: HOD approves intake decision as Proceed.
Owner: HR issues; Candidate signs; HR files.
Deadline for candidate: 3 business days from issue.
AIS_Candidate_Agreement.md) to the candidate's email address.The Round 1 assignment is not sent until both the agreement is signed AND document verification is complete (Stage 4).
Trigger: Signed Candidate Agreement received.
Owner: HR
Time limit: Complete within 2 business days.
| Document | How to collect | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Government-issued photo ID | Request via secure channel (HR email to candidate, do not use shared links) | Name matches the agreement; document appears genuine; not expired |
| CV / Resume | Already submitted at intake; re-confirm if intake submission was a link | Consistent with intake form claims |
| LinkedIn profile | Check the URL submitted at intake | Active, recent activity, experience matches CV |
| GitHub / GitLab profile | Check the URL submitted at intake | Real repositories with commit history; projects described in intake are present or consistent |
| Portfolio / personal website | If submitted | Accessible; content consistent with claims |
| Item | Verified | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Government ID collected and name matches | ☐ | |
| LinkedIn active and consistent | ☐ | |
| GitHub active and consistent | ☐ | |
| CV consistent with intake form | ☐ | |
| No inconsistencies or red flags identified | ☐ |
If a red flag is found (inconsistent experience dates, cloned/empty GitHub with claimed projects, name mismatch on ID): flag immediately to HOD. HOD decides whether to continue, request clarification from the candidate, or decline.
When verification is complete: Notify the HOD. HOD confirms the assignment can be issued.
Trigger: Document verification complete and HOD confirms.
Owner: HR issues; Senior Developer or HOD reviews.
"Complete this independently and in good faith. You may use AI tools unless the brief says otherwise. Submit your work to [submission method] by [agreed deadline]. If you need an extension, contact us before the deadline."
Assignments are role-appropriate technical tasks designed to test hands-on capability, not just knowledge. The current assignment library is maintained by the HOD. General principles:
Assignment confidentiality: The assignment is covered by the Candidate Agreement. It must not be shared externally. Remind candidates of this at handover.
If the candidate does not submit by the deadline and has not requested an extension:
Review the submission within 2 business days of receipt.
What to assess:
| Area | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Completeness | Did they do what the brief asked? Did they cut corners or go beyond? |
| Technical correctness | Does it actually work? Are there obvious errors or shortcuts that suggest copy-paste? |
| Code quality | Is it readable, structured, maintainable — or rushed and messy? |
| Deployment | Did they deploy it, or only deliver code? (Gate G1 requires ship, not just build.) |
| Independence | Does it feel like their own work? Note anything that feels inconsistent with their intake profile. |
| Brief adherence | Did they follow the instructions? This also tests whether they read and follow directions — relevant to client work. |
Round 1 Decision:
| Decision | Criteria | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| Pass | Submission is complete, working, and at a standard that warrants a live interview | HR schedules Round 2 |
| Fail | Incomplete, broken, substantially off-brief, or clear signs of misrepresentation | HR sends rejection with brief written feedback; no reapplication for 45 days |
| Borderline | Technically weak in one area but otherwise solid | HOD decides; may pass with a note to probe the weak area in Round 2 |
Borderline rule: If the Senior Developer and HOD disagree on a borderline, the HOD's call is final.
Trigger: Round 1 passed.
Owner: HR schedules; Senior Developer or HOD conducts.
Candidate prep note (include in the scheduling email):
"Your Round 2 interview will be 30–45 minutes. It is a technical conversation — expect to walk through your Round 1 submission in detail, answer scenario-based questions, and discuss your broader experience. Be ready to talk through how you've approached problems in past projects. No slides required — just think clearly and be specific."
Before the call:
AIS_Interview_Card template)The interview follows the structure in the candidate's interview card. The card is built from AIS_Screening_Interview_Guide.md and customised to the candidate's background.
General conduct rules:
Timing guide:
| Segment | Time |
|---|---|
| Welcome, frame the call | 2 min |
| Project deep dive (Q1) | 10 min |
| AI / technical deep dive (Q2) | 7 min |
| Leadership and cross-domain (Q3) | 4 min |
| Working style and client readiness (Q4) | 4 min |
| Security and learning (Q5) | 3 min |
| Candidate questions + wrap | 5 min |
| Total | ~35 min |
During the call: Take brief notes per category. Do not score while the candidate is still answering — jot keywords and score immediately after each question block.
After the call (within 10 minutes):
If AI-assisted scoring is used (from transcript):
Per AIS_AI_Assisted_Evaluation.md, the AI draft covers Layer 1 categories. The human must:
The transcript is available same-day via the call recording platform. AI evaluation runs on the transcript; human observation checklist is filled immediately post-call regardless.
Gate first. If any gate item is a Fail, the candidate does not proceed regardless of category scores.
| Gate result | Score | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Fail on any gate item | Any | Reject. Written feedback within 24 hours. |
| Pass all gate items | Below 35 | Reject. Written feedback within 24 hours. |
| Pass all gate items | 35–48 | Junior — Accept or Track B routing |
| Pass all gate items | 49–57 | Mid — Accept or Track B routing |
| Pass all gate items | 58–70 | Senior — Accept |
| Borderline / HOD discretion | Any | Hold for 30 days; specific gap documented |
Track routing:
HOD confirms the track. Track B gaps must be documented specifically (e.g. "Agentic AI category scored 2; needs hands-on agent build before placement"). Vague Track B assignments are not acceptable.
Trigger: HOD confirms Round 2 decision.
Owner: HR communicates; HOD reviews message before send for Accept cases.
Time limit: All outcomes communicated within 24 hours of the interview.
HR sends a congratulations email confirming:
HR sends a rejection email with brief written feedback covering:
Do not send a form rejection with no substance. Written feedback is a standing rule — it protects REMAP's reputation and gives candidates something useful.
HR sends a hold notice:
Trigger: Accept decision confirmed by HOD.
Owner: HR records; HOD verifies.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Full name | |
| Tier | Junior / Mid / Senior |
| Track | A / B |
| Rubric total score | /70 |
| Rubric category scores | All 14 |
| Gate result | Pass |
| Candidate Agreement signed date | |
| Pool entry date | |
| 90-day placement window expiry | (Pool entry date + 90 days) |
| Sourcing channel | Team / Direct hire / Partner org |
| Track B gaps (if applicable) | |
| Status | Available / In Training |
Subject: Your Application to REMAP AI
Hi [Name],
Thank you for your interest in REMAP's AI Specialist programme. After reviewing your application, we do not have a match for our current requirements — [one specific reason if appropriate, e.g. "we are looking for candidates with production-level automation experience at this time"].
We wish you well with your search.
REMAP AI
Subject: AIS Screening — Round 1 Outcome
Hi [Name],
Thank you for submitting the Round 1 assignment. We have reviewed your submission carefully.
[What was strong — 1 sentence.]
On this occasion, we are not proceeding — [specific reason, e.g. "the submission did not demonstrate end-to-end deployment, which is a core requirement for all tiers"]. We encourage you to strengthen this area and reapply after 45 days.
Thank you for the time you invested.
REMAP AI
Subject: AIS Screening — Round 2 Outcome
Hi [Name],
Thank you for taking the time for the Round 2 interview. It was good to speak with you.
[What was strong — 1–2 sentences.]
After scoring and review, we are not proceeding at this stage — [specific area, e.g. "we are looking for stronger hands-on agentic AI depth for the placements we currently have in pipeline"]. We would encourage you to build in this area and reapply in 45 days.
We hope to speak again.
REMAP AI
Subject: You're In — Welcome to the REMAP AIS Pool
Hi [Name],
Great news — you have passed the screening process and have been accepted into REMAP's AI Specialist pool as a [Tier] engineer.
You are on Track A (Placement Ready), which means you go directly into the matching pool. We will be in touch when a client opportunity that fits your profile comes up.
In the meantime: keep us updated on any changes to your availability. If you enter an active interview process elsewhere or receive an offer, please give us a heads-up so we can respond quickly.
The Candidate Agreement you have already signed covers everything from here until placement. At placement, you will sign a Subcontractor Agreement that formalises the working terms.
Welcome aboard.
REMAP AI
Subject: You're In — REMAP AIS Pool (Track B)
Hi [Name],
You have passed the screening process and have been accepted into REMAP's AI Specialist pool as a [Tier] engineer.
You are on Track B, which means there are a few specific areas to develop before we start matching you to clients. Here is what we will work on together:
- [Gap 1 — specific, e.g. "Agentic AI: build and deploy one production agent with tool use and error handling"]
- [Gap 2 if applicable]
Track B runs for a maximum of 6 weeks. We will review progress at week 3 and week 6. Once you are through, you move to Track A.
You are a pool member from today — the same freedoms apply: you are free to work on other things, and if your availability changes, just keep us in the loop.
REMAP AI
| Stage | Action | Owner | Time limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HR checklist triage | HR | 2 business days from receipt |
| 2 | Intake form + video issued, reviewed, decided | HR issues; HOD decides | Candidate: 3 days. HOD: 2 days after submission. |
| 3 | Candidate Agreement issued, signed, filed | HR issues; candidate signs | Candidate: 3 days |
| 4 | Document and profile verification | HR | 2 business days |
| 5 | Round 1 assignment issued, submitted, reviewed | Sr Dev / HOD reviews | Candidate: 5 days. Review: 2 days after submission. |
| 6 | Round 2 interview conducted and scored | Sr Dev / HOD | Scheduled within 1 business day of R1 pass |
| 7 | Outcome communicated | HR | Within 24 hours of interview |
| 8 | Pool entry recorded | HR + HOD | Same day as accept decision |
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
AIS_Phase1_Resource_Acquisition_v2.md |
Full Phase 1 process and sourcing channels |
AIS_Candidate_Intake_Form_v2.md |
Stage 2 intake form (candidate-facing) |
AIS_Candidate_Agreement.md |
Stage 3 agreement (pre-placement contract) |
AIS_Screening_Rubric_DRAFT_v4.md |
Round 2 scoring rubric (14 categories + Baseline Gate) |
AIS_Screening_Interview_Guide.md |
Round 2 question set and interview structure |
AIS_AI_Assisted_Evaluation_DRAFT.md |
AI vs human scoring split; calibration rules |
AIS_Interview_Card_[Candidate].md |
Per-candidate interview card (generated per Round 2) |
REMAP AI · Private AI LLC · Internal Use Only · Confidential