# How do you test workflow, support and a human scouting service fairly?


**Measure the completed recruitment task, including verification and handover—not the supplier’s demonstration speed.**

Use intended users after a comparable onboarding allowance. Time the sequence from question receipt to a decision-ready output, including searching, watching footage, reconciling identities, checking claims, creating clips and entering the result into the club’s system.

Report:

- task completion and unresolved questions;
- median and slowest observed completion time;
- supplier assistance required;
- verification and rework time;
- output quality for the recruitment meeting;
- whether another staff member can repeat the process.

Counterbalance supplier order where possible. Once evaluators have seen an answer, do not present a repeat as an independent test of discovery speed. Use comparable held-out cases for the second run.

For support, submit a genuine trial issue and record acknowledgement, useful response, resolution and correction history. Treat promises about future service separately from observed performance.

For regional scouting, specify the territory, live versus video work, number and type of observations, named assessor or substitution rules, report format, delivery deadline and conflicts process. Request a customised sample rather than a generic promotional report.

For example, 360 Scouting publicly describes club-specific samples, reporting into club databases, and live coverage dependent on scout location. Those statements provide useful diligence questions; they do not verify availability or service quality for a particular assignment. ([360scouting.com](https://360scouting.com/for-clubs/?utm_source=openai))