Digital humans are emerging as autonomous agents in multiparty interactions, yet existing evaluation metrics largely ignore contextual coordination dynamics. We introduce a unified, intervention-driven framework for objective assessment of multiparty social behaviour in skeletal motion data, spanning three complementary dimensions: (1) synchrony via Cross-Recurrence Quantification Analysis, (2) temporal alignment via Multiscale Empirical Mode Decompositionbased Beat Consistency, and (3) structural similarity via Soft Dynamic Time Warping. We validate metric sensitivity through three theory-driven perturbations -- gesture kinematic dampening, uniform speech-gesture delays, and prosodic pitch-variance reduction-applied to $\approx 145$ 30-second thin slices of group interactions from the DnD dataset. Mixed-effects analyses reveal predictable, joint-independent shifts: dampening increases CRQA determinism and reduces beat consistency, delays weaken cross-participant coupling, and pitch flattening elevates F0 Soft-DTW costs. A complementary perception study ($N=27$) compares judgments of full-video and skeleton-only renderings to quantify representation effects. Our three measures deliver orthogonal insights into spatial structure, timing alignment, and behavioural variability. Thereby forming a robust toolkit for evaluating and refining socially intelligent agents. Code available on \href{https://github.com/tapri-lab/gig-interveners}{GitHub}.

Faculty hiring shapes the flow of ideas, resources, and opportunities in academia, influencing not only individual career trajectories but also broader patterns of institutional prestige and scientific progress. While traditional studies have found strong correlations between faculty hiring and attributes such as doctoral department prestige and publication record, they rarely assess whether these associations generalize to individual hiring outcomes, particularly for future candidates outside the original sample. Here, we consider faculty placement as an individual-level prediction task. Our data consist of temporal co-authorship networks with conventional attributes such as doctoral department prestige and bibliometric features. We observe that using the co-authorship network significantly improves predictive accuracy by up to 10% over traditional indicators alone, with the largest gains observed for placements at the most elite (top-10) departments. Our results underscore the role that social networks, professional endorsements, and implicit advocacy play in faculty hiring beyond traditional measures of scholarly productivity and institutional prestige. By introducing a predictive framing of faculty placement and establishing the benefit of considering co-authorship networks, this work provides a new lens for understanding structural biases in academia that could inform targeted interventions aimed at increasing transparency, fairness, and equity in academic hiring practices.