[EmployedRussian]

There are no such incentives.

When writing feedback, you simply look back at 20 other interviews where you asked the same question, and write "candidate X's performance on this question was was in {top,bottom} {5,25,50}% of ... at this level".

You also have no idea how other interviewers will score, and if your score is 1.5 when everyone else's is a 3.9, it's likely that the HC will ignore you.

The HCs do see multiple feedback from you and your peers, so they build a model of your feedback for themselves: P is a soft interviewer, so we'll adjust his score down but Q is a very hard interviewer so we'll adjust her score up ;-)

[steelframe]

My hires are uniformly distributed across the score spectrum. Not sure how the HCs "adjust" me. I have gotten props for the quality of my written feedback though.

[EmployedRussian]

It doesn't matter how your candidates are distributed across the spectrum (and I do hope that your hires are not uniformly distributed ;-)

What matters is how your scores compare to other interviewers scores on the given slate.

> Not sure how the HCs "adjust" me.

Maybe they don't. Maybe you are the most precise and best-calibrated interviewer on every slate, and never make a bad call. Good for you ;-)