Interactive Orientation Assessment Rubric

---

How This Rubric Works

This rubric is used by the orientation lead to assess each interactive director at two checkpoints: end of Cycle 1 (Week 6, Sun Aug 30, 2026) and end of Cycle 2 (Week 12, Sun Oct 11, 2026). The same categories are evaluated each time. The standard rises between cycles.

Each category is scored on a four-level scale:

Level	Label	Meaning
1	Not Yet	Has not demonstrated this capability. Needs direct instruction.
2	Emerging	Shows early signs but inconsistent. Needs regular coaching.
3	Developing	Demonstrates capability with occasional gaps. Needs light guidance.
4	Independent	Demonstrates capability consistently without prompting. Ready to practice.

The goal is not for every interactive director to reach Level 4 in every category by Week 12. The goal is visible, documentable progression from wherever they started. A director who moves from 1 to 3 across two cycles has demonstrated significant growth. A director who stays at 2 across both has not.

---

Category 1: Experience Strategy

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Aug 30)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 11)
1	Cannot answer the three experience questions. Jumps to layout before strategy.	Still dependent on lead for experience direction. No meaningful progression from Cycle 1.
2	Can answer the questions with coaching. Answers are vague or borrowed from the brand strategy verbatim.	Experience rationale is adequate but not directional. Still occasionally vague.
3	Answers are defensible and grounded in the brand strategy and discovery findings. Can explain why the experience structure matters.	Experience rationale is specific, ties directly to positioning, and drives every layout decision.
4	Experience strategy is clear, specific, and directly informs all downstream design decisions. Can defend it under pressure.	Anticipates every question. Defends experience decisions with evidence and conviction. Needs no coaching.

---

Category 2: Visual and Structural Design (Figma)

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Aug 30)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 11)
1	Visual choices are arbitrary. No grid, inconsistent type, broken hierarchy. Cannot explain why any element is placed where it is.	Visual work does not demonstrate growth from Cycle 1.
2	Some choices connect to the experience rationale but the design lacks coherence. Type hierarchy is unclear. Grid is applied inconsistently.	Design is competent but lacks the precision that distinguishes professional work.
3	Most choices are traceable to strategy. Type hierarchy is clear. Grid is intentional. Interaction states defined. Can apply visual first principles when prompted.	Strong design with clear rationale. Self-critiques effectively before presenting. Design is portfolio-quality.
4	Every choice serves the experience strategy. All six first principles applied without prompting. Design is clearly a system, not a collection of pages.	Work is indistinguishable from agency-produced design. Defends every decision. The design speaks for itself.

---

Category 3: Build and QA Rigor

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Aug 30)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 11)
1	Built site diverges significantly from Figma. Cannot describe discrepancies specifically. QA is absent or surface-level.	QA has not developed as a skill.
2	Built site mostly matches Figma at desktop but drifts at tablet/mobile. QA catches the obvious issues and misses the subtle ones (spacing, line heights, letter spacing).	QA is consistent but not yet comprehensive. Lead still finds issues they missed.
3	Built site matches Figma closely at every breakpoint. QA is systematic. Director catches most discrepancies before lead review.	QA is comprehensive and self-directed. Lead finds few or no issues the director missed.
4	Built site is a precise match to Figma. QA process is documented, systematic, and internalized. Director catches everything before lead reviews.	QA is indistinguishable from a senior practitioner. Could teach the process to someone else.

---

Category 4: AI Fluency

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Aug 30)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 11)
1	Prompts are vague. Claude Code output requires many iterations to approximate the Figma. Accepts output that does not match the design.	No meaningful progression from Cycle 1.
2	Prompts are more specific but still broad. Takes 5+ iterations to reach each section. Does not consistently reference Figma specs in prompts.	Prompts are specific but not consistently vision-led.
3	Prompts reference Figma values (font sizes, spacing, hex codes, interaction specs). Reaches design match in 2–3 iterations per section. Knows when to redirect.	Precise, iterative, vision-led prompting. Uses AI as a tool, not a creative partner.
4	Directs Claude Code with the specificity of a senior developer brief. Output matches Figma on first or second iteration. Knows what they are describing before touching any tool.	Full directorial control. Could teach someone else how to prompt Claude Code for interactive work.

---

Category 5: Client Communication and Presentation

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Aug 30)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 11)
1	Cannot present work clearly. Does not connect the live site to the experience strategy. Reads from slides.	Presentation skills have not improved.
2	Presents but does not tell a story. Connects deliverables to strategy when prompted. Struggles with client questions.	Competent presenter but lacks conviction on difficult questions.
3	Presents clearly with strategy-to-site connection. Walks the client through the live site with confidence. Handles most questions with rationale.	Strong presenter. Leads the room. Defends decisions with evidence.
4	Commands the room. Every part of the live site is framed in terms of what the audience needs and why. Handles pushback with ease.	Could present to any client in any context. The program's proof of concept.

---

Category 6: Team Integration

Level	Cycle 1 (End of Wk 6 · Sun Aug 30)	Cycle 2 (End of Wk 12 · Sun Oct 11)
1	No coordination with teammates. Digital experience exists in isolation. Brand assets not correctly applied.	Team integration has not developed.
2	Applies brand identity but does not coordinate on how it extends. Adds motion assets late with no specification handoff.	Coordinates but does not drive integration.
3	Receives brand strategy early. Defines motion specs (where, when, how long) for the Motion director. Deploys staging URL so teammates can test in context.	Full integration. The team output feels like one vision, not three tracks.
4	Interactive is the connective tissue between Brand and Motion. Proactively ensures the three outputs feel like one system.	The team is indistinguishable from a professional creative team.

---

Assessment Record Template

Narrative assessment (required at end of Cycle 2)

• Where did this person start?
• What changed?
• What is their realistic 90–180 day path forward as a working creative?