process · 02

Find real fits. Faster.

Twenty signals, one score, and the reasoning behind every place on the list.

Twenty scored signals per candidate, not a keyword count.
Claims checked against the public record before anyone is invited.
Every position on the list opens up into its evidence.

20signals scored per candidate

6verdicts a claim can receive

0candidates removed from the list

how the system behaves, not a benchmark

Shortlists That Truly Fit.

Keywords tell you what a resume says. Twenty separate signals tell you what a career looks like. The claims that matter are then checked against the public record, and the pile is ordered rather than trimmed, so the weak end is still there when you want to see it.

Relevant Matches

Candidates surface because their history fits the role, not because their resume repeated the right words in the right order.

Quality Over Quantity

A shorter list you can act on, with fewer false positives and fewer interviews spent finding out.

Twenty signals, one score.

Every candidate is read on the same twenty signals, each on a five point scale, so two candidates are always compared on the same axes. These are the ones that do most of the work:

Skill matchingExperience relevanceTotal experience Role progression velocitySkill-application cohesion Learning velocityCareer pivotsGaps with context Job-hoppingSkills with no sourcePeer validation Skill gaps and transferable skillsIndustry alignment Stage fitGrowth potential

How the number is built

45%
Your criteria
The must-haves you wrote, weighted by the order you put them in, each judged on the evidence it actually earns rather than on whether the word appears.
40%
The twenty signals
The standing read on the career itself, scored one to five and summed against the maximum available.
15%
The claim check
What the public record says about the roles being claimed, once a candidate is close enough to matter.
then
The interview, when there is one
Once somebody has interviewed, the interview carries the majority of the final number and everything above becomes the minority. Paper opens the door; it does not decide.
and
A missing signal sits at the middle, not at zero
Somebody who has not interviewed yet is not punished for it, and cannot outrank somebody who has proved it either. New arrivals are scored on their own signals, so nobody else on the list moves when they land.

What a claim check comes back with.

Roles and achievements are pulled out of the resume and searched against public sources. Each claim gets one of six verdicts, and you see every one of them with the reasoning attached.

supported
Found and backed
Public evidence corroborates the claim directly.
plausible
Reasonable, not proven
Nothing contradicts it and the context fits, but there is no direct confirmation.
expected
Unremarkable for the role
Exactly what somebody in that seat at that company would be doing. Neither impressive nor suspect.
overstated
Inflated in the telling
“Led” where the record reads “contributed to”. The work happened; the framing grew.
mismatch
Contradicted
The record disagrees. Wrong company, wrong dates, wrong scope.
unverifiable
Nothing found either way
Treated as neutral, never as a lie. Plenty of real work leaves no public trace.

A single overstatement changes very little. A pattern of them carries a penalty, as does a resume written to echo the job description back at you. Separately, and quietly, repeat applicants to your organisation are checked for tenure that drifts between submissions and for years of experience growing faster than the calendar. Both are advisory. Neither blocks anybody.

What it will not do.

It will not remove anyone from the list. Ordering is not filtering.
It will not treat “nothing found” as evidence of dishonesty.
It will not reshuffle the rest of your list when a new application lands.
It will not score culture fit, or ownership, or go-getter. Vague criteria are rejected before ranking begins.

“I particularly appreciate the AI bot that handles initial candidate interaction. It serves as an effective first line of engagement, and the detailed, evaluation-backed rankings bring a new layer of trust to every hiring decision, something traditional ATSs often miss.”

Kusum Rajput · Human Resource Associate