That's the right mindset - when interviewing, we commonly look at their accomplishments in the past, but what we're really looking for is evidence that the candidate will be able to perform well at the new position.<p>So we need to collect evidence by asking about specific situations which we assume has been similar to what the candidate will need to do on the new position (Experiential Evidence). This is stronger than the other types of evidence, but especially when the candidate has no direct work experience we'd need to defer to hypothetical evidence where we try to set up a scenario close to what the candidate will likely experience on the new job (hypothetical evidence).<p>Opinion Evidence is at times useful as well, but most of the time I think that candidates do not voice their opinion - they try to guess, and then articulate, _my_ opinion on the matter. Which makes a lot of sense.<p>The article describes credential evidence (qualifications) as the most straightforward type of evidence. I, however, have found that this is the most useless type of evidence given how the vast majority of "qualifications" mostly prove that you had the money to pay for the certificate.<p>It needs to be said that candidates do lie and exaggerate, so collecting evidence is not enough - it's the big picture that emerges based on all this evidence. That's where the good old judgement call comes in. But if you have multiple interviewers involved, it is much easier to argue about this judgement call on the basis of evidence than on the basis of gut feeling.