Put the note next to the evidence
A review note is easier to use when it points to a moment. On a recording, that can be a timestamp. In a transcript, it can be a quoted sentence. In a written answer, it can be the section name. The note should be close enough that the next reviewer can find the passage without watching the whole interview again.
Ask for the note while the reviewer is watching, not from memory at the end. A note written during the answer tends to include the detail that shaped the reaction. A note written later tends to summarise the impression.
Name the criterion
A timestamp alone is not a review. The note should say which criterion the moment belongs to and what it shows. For a planning criterion, the note might say that the candidate named a sequence and a risk but not a review point. That sentence gives the team something to compare.
Use the same note format for every reviewer. A short format such as criterion, evidence, open question is enough. A consistent format makes the notes readable side by side.
Keep the score separate from the note
The note explains the evidence. The score records the judgement. Keep them in separate fields so a reviewer can change the score without rewriting the evidence. When the team discusses a difference, the note shows what changed the reading.
If a reviewer changes a score after the discussion, ask them to add a short note about which evidence changed their mind. The record then shows the path, not only the final number.
Share the record with the review
Put the notes, the score and the recording in the same place. A reviewer in another location or another timezone should not have to ask for a summary. The shared record answers the basic questions before the meeting starts.
Give access to the people who review and to the people who support the process. A screenshot sent in a message is not a shared record; it is a copy that can drift.
Use the notes in the decision meeting
Start the meeting with the moments the reviewers marked. Read the passage and ask what each person saw. This keeps the conversation on the evidence and away from a general impression of the candidate.
When the team disagrees, look for the criterion behind the difference. The note may show that one reviewer used a different part of the answer, or that the rubric is vague. Both are useful outcomes for the next interview.
Review the note format after a round
Read a sample of notes after a round. Are they specific enough to find the moment? Do they name the criterion? Does the team use the same format? Change one part of the format and see whether the next round is easier to read.
Timestamped notes are a small habit with a clear purpose: keep the evidence next to the judgement. When the evidence is easy to find, the team can spend its meeting on the decision instead of on a search through memory.