Reports

Committee-ready in minutes.

Every Aster report turns a live interview into structured insight your committee can read, discuss, and trust — with every observation linked back to the moment it happened.

See the Platform
report → transcript
Deep Analysis
Reflection
Identifies a specific moment of failure and a concrete behavioral change.↗ exchange 3
Distinguishes between leading and listening as separate skills.
Transcript
Exchange 3
"I assumed leading meant talking the most. After our team lost, I realized I had stopped listening."
Evidence linked

What's Inside

Built for the way committees actually read.

Value alignment

How the student maps to the qualities your institution evaluates — with rated signal strength on each.

value alignment
Value
Signal
Intellectual Curiosity
Strong
DepthDeep
5 exchanges
Reflection
Consistent
DepthModerate
4 exchanges
Initiative
Observable
DepthLight
2 exchanges

Recorded interview + structured transcript

Every report opens the full recorded interview alongside a timestamped, evidence-tagged transcript — not a chat log.

interview review · maya okonkwo
MO
REC
02:38 / 12m 38s
Aster prompt
You mentioned the robotics team lost regionals. Walk me through what you thought happened in the moment.
12m 38s
11 exchanges9 evidence markers
Maya Okonkwo
Grade 11 · #A-2147 · Oct 14
Leadership
02:01
Aster · Interviewer
You mentioned the robotics team lost regionals. Walk me through what you thought happened in the moment.
02:14
Maya Okonkwo
Honestly, I thought we'd lost because the judges didn't see the autonomous code working. That's what I told my coach that night.
↳ Initial framing
02:34
Aster · Interviewer
And later?
02:38
Maya Okonkwo
Later I rewatched the run. Three of my teammates had flagged the wiring issue I overruled. I assumed leading meant talking the most. After we lost, I realized I had stopped listening.
↳ Behavioral evidence · Reflection
03:02
Aster · Interviewer
What did you change?
03:06
Maya Okonkwo
I made it a rule to ask the quietest person on the team first. It's slower. Our last two builds passed inspection first try, which never used to happen.
Live analysis
Reflection · Identifies a specific moment of failure and a concrete behavioral change.
Strong

Deep analysis

Section-by-section observations grounded in specific moments from the conversation.

deep analysis · intellectual curiosity
Intellectual Curiosity · Priya Raghavan
Senior · Applicant #H-0418 · Based on 3 probed exchanges
Assessment Depth: Deep

Priya is a rare candidate who treats being wrong as the start of inquiry, not the end of it. Her evidence of independent research is concrete, and she distinguishes curiosity from credentialing more cleanly than most applicants twice her age.

Exchange · 04:06
"I expected attendance to drop. That was the whole argument I was building."
Exchange · 04:11
"It didn't. So I stopped trying to prove I was right and started asking why I'd been wrong."
Exchange · 04:32
"Less interesting on paper. But it was actually a better question — it asked who was showing up, not just how many. That distinction ended up being the whole paper."

Evidence chain

Every finding links to supporting evidence, the transcript exchange, and any committee decision grounded in it.

finding → evidence → transcript → decision
1 · Finding
Community Contribution
Describes ongoing, unprompted contribution to a peer beyond his own circle — with specifics, not slogans.
Signal: Strong
2 · Supporting evidence
3 links
  • ↗Exchange 4 · names a specific peer and need
  • ↗Exchange 6 · describes what he gave up to keep it going
  • ↗Exchange 9 · credits the peer without centering himself
3 · Transcript
03:42
"He didn't ask. I just noticed he was eating alone every Tuesday because that's when his bus came late. So I started eating late on Tuesdays too. That's it. It wasn't a project."
Marcus Bellamy · Exchange 4
4 · Committee decision
Advance — strong community fitRecommend
Character evidence is concrete and unrehearsed. Flag for house-master review on dorm placement.
Logged by: Ms. Hadley · 19 Jan, 10:22am

Assessment depth

See how thoroughly each dimension was explored — based on probing quality, not reference count.

assessment depth
Depth measures probing quality — not how often a topic was mentioned.
Deep
Direct probing with follow-ups and concrete examples.
Moderate
Touched on and partially explored.
Light
Mentioned but rarely probed.

Committee compare view

Scan an entire shortlist side-by-side, with one click to the full evidence-linked report.

committee · honors finalists
Honors Program · Round 1 finalists
4 of 187 applicants · sorted by aggregate signal
Compare view
ApplicantCuriosityReflectionInitiativeRecommendation
Priya Raghavan
#H-0418
StrongStrongConsistentStrongly recommend
Daniel Chen
#H-0421
ConsistentConsistentConsistentRecommend
Ana Suárez
#H-0429
StrongObservableStrongRecommend
⚐ Probe reflection in follow-up
Jordan Lee
#H-0432
ObservableConsistentConsistentDiscuss
Click any row to open the full evidence-linked reportOpen Priya Raghavan ↗

Committee summary

Every report ends with a recommendation-ready summary your team can act on.

committee summary
Priya Raghavan
Senior · #H-0418 · Interviewed Nov 02 · 14m 02s · 12 exchanges
Strongly recommend

Priya is a rare candidate who treats being wrong as the start of inquiry, not the end of it. Her evidence of independent research is concrete, and she distinguishes curiosity from credentialing more cleanly than most applicants twice her age.

Strengths
  • · Revises her hypothesis when evidence contradicts it
  • · Reads outside her assigned coursework — and can explain why
  • · Acknowledges what she doesn't yet understand without hedging
Consider
  • · Leadership evidence thinner — solo work predominates
  • · Brief on collaborative research experience
Report generated 4 min after interview · 11 evidence linksOpen full report ↗

Read a sample report.

We'll share a real, anonymized Aster report so you can see how an interview translates into committee-ready evidence.