Interview notes are personal information, not harmless training examples.

Start here

Does any of this sound familiar?

• Recruiters save answers, suitability opinions, feedback, and follow-ups in ATS notes.
• Your team is considering AI summaries, scoring, or evaluation of interview material.
• You want to protect candidates and preserve necessary decision records.

Notes may include verbatim answers, subjective opinions, irrelevant volunteered details, or information about others. Candidates may request them, so retrieval and handling must follow applicable privacy rules.

Treat AI use as a new processing question. Establish original purpose, authorization, necessary exclusions, access, and retention before considering training or evaluation.

The problem

Free text magnifies privacy and fairness risk

Notes can drift from job-related evidence into unsupported impressions or sensitive details. Recruiters document inconsistently; a model may reproduce irrelevant judgments. Removing names may not protect a distinctive work history or personal story.

Historical notes, expert-created scenarios, and evaluation rubrics are different materials. A fictional standardized answer can test summarization against job criteria; real notes capture actual people and recruiter opinions.

Write notes for a defensible hiring decision, not for a future model that nobody has scoped.

The solution

Make interview documentation purposeful and controlled

Review the process before any AI assessment; clear practices support candidate trust and reliable review.

DataSupply partners only with labs that meet its top 0.01% credibility standard. We help assess whether a qualified buyer may be a fit and negotiate terms that reflect the data's potential value, including exclusivity where relevant. We also help you work through diligence questions about rights, privacy, security, and compliance, then present a high-level inventory of permitted records, not the dataset. Fit is specific to each situation; no buyer or value is guaranteed.

What to inventory before any buyer conversation

• Standardize job-related prompts Tie consistent questions to role criteria. Record relevant evidence, separate facts from opinions, avoid sensitive detail, and correct errors through a documented process.
• Set access, retention, and request handling Define who can view notes, storage locations, retention, and secure deletion. Map ATS, email, recording, and client copies so candidate requests can be handled.
• Assess AI use before activating a feature Document purpose, provider, data location, access, retention, and reuse. Review notice, legal basis, client authority, security, bias testing, human review, and correction. Prefer synthetic or authorized tasks for early evaluation.

Set the boundaries before discussing access.

Counsel should assess candidate rights, legal basis, retention, client roles, and recording rules. Security should verify access, vendor settings, encryption, deletion, and incident response. Do not upload notes to unapproved AI services.

What could make a permitted example useful?

Standardized notes may aid review and reduce collection, but do not justify secondary use. Permission, security, and candidate trust come first.

A practical first step.

Review a blank interview template and retention schedule with privacy counsel. Do not share actual notes.

datasupply.ai can discuss possible fit and buyer questions without receiving your dataset. You decide whether to pursue any introduction. No buyer, license, or payment is guaranteed.

Documented example / what it proves

The UK ICO specifically addresses interview notes and candidate requests

UK Information Commissioner’s Office guidance says interview records may include candidate responses or a recruiter’s suitability opinion, and candidates can request interview notes through a subject access request. It also addresses remote interviewing and recruitment records. Read Information Commissioner’s Office.

Keep notes relevant, retrievable, access-controlled, and covered by retention rules. AI reuse needs separate purpose, rights, privacy, and security review.

The important limit: The ICO explains UK recruitment privacy, not AI training permission, a candidate-data license, or a closed transaction. Other jurisdictions may differ.