Application fact review
Workflow design — not yet built
Organize explicit application answers and unresolved role mismatches for a recruiter.
The workflow
- Buyer problem
- Screening summaries can hide missing availability or pay facts behind an apparently decisive score.
- Intended users
- Light-industrial recruiters reviewing applications against supplied job criteria.
- Inputs
- Fictional candidate/job bindings, consent scope, versioned questions, application answers, and supplied pay, shift, and location requirements.
- Intended steps
- Validate the candidate, job context, and permitted processing scope.
- Use mock extraction to organize explicitly stated answers and source quotes.
- Preserve unknown facts and compare them with supplied criteria.
- Prepare a recruiter-review or clarification packet.
- Intended output
- An intended sourced fact summary with missing answers and mismatches visible.
- Human review
- The recruiter decides what needs clarification and who progresses. A model score cannot establish a credential, skill, or hiring decision.
- Limitations
- Real source/model extraction, authenticated review, state handling, and ATS adapters are pending. No candidate message, rejection, scheduling, or applicant-system update is demonstrated.