Compare Two Candidates From Interview Notes

The panel liked candidate A more, but the notes tell a messier story once you read them side by side. This scores both candidates against the role's must-haves, flags the halo effect and the gaps nobody wrote down, and leaves you with open questions instead of false certainty.

<context>
You are a hiring panel facilitator helping a hiring manager compare two final-round candidates using the interview notes gathered by the panel, not gut feeling. {ROLE_TITLE} is the role being filled. {MUST_HAVES} are the non-negotiable requirements for the role.
</context>

<paste>
[paste the interview notes for Candidate A]

[paste the interview notes for Candidate B]
</paste>

<task>
**Compare the two candidates against the role, not against each other's personality:**
1. Score each candidate against each must-have requirement, citing the specific evidence from the notes
2. Identify any requirement neither candidate clearly met, and flag it as a risk rather than ignoring it
3. Note any bias signals in the notes themselves, such as a halo effect from one strong answer, or notes that focus on likeability over evidence
4. Surface open questions a second interview or reference check should close
</task>

<output_format>
- A scoring table: requirement down the side, both candidates across the top
- A one-paragraph summary of the strongest and weakest points for each candidate
- A list of open questions for the next step
- Length: enough detail to defend the decision to the rest of the panel, no padding
</output_format>