Governance
Anything that decides something about a person has to be explainable to that person. Ours is arithmetic, disclosed in full, and reproducible by anyone holding the same inputs.
Disclosed weights
The measurement is a fixed arithmetic blend of skills, qualifications and experience, weighted 0.45, 0.25 and 0.30. Those proportions are the same for every candidate and every role, and they are published here rather than described in general terms.
Structured requirements
Roles are not read from advert copy. They are matched to occupational requirements held in a published taxonomy, so two employers writing the same job get the same requirements.
Reproducible
The same inputs always produce the same result. There is no sampling, no drift, and no model version that quietly changes an outcome.
Auditable
Every element of a result can be taken apart and shown to the person it describes. A result that cannot be explained to a candidate is a defect.
The platform measures and explains, and a person can be part of the conversation — see Coaching.
Language layer only
The model rewrites and clarifies. It has no access to the scoring engine and cannot alter a measurement.
Temperature zero
The same input produces the same output. Nothing is left to sampling.
No-new-facts guard
Every generated line is checked back against the candidate's confirmed record before it is shown. A claim that is not in the record is blocked, not softened.
Weighting experience will always favour people who have had the chance to accumulate it. That structurally disadvantages people returning after a break, people leaving prison, people who have been out of work a long time, and people changing direction late. We regard that as a defect in the blend rather than a property of the candidates, and it is under formal equality impact assessment before the platform is used in any public employment programme.
No. It produces a measurement and an explanation of that measurement. The judgement stays with the recruiter, employer or adviser, who sees the reasoning rather than only the result.
Yes. The weights are published, the requirements come from a taxonomy anyone can inspect, and every element of a result can be traced to a specific piece of the candidate's own evidence.
No. The model works on language only. Every generated line is checked back against the candidate's confirmed record, and any claim that is not in the record is blocked rather than softened.
The inputs are the candidate's own and they can correct them. Because the method is fixed and disclosed, a corrected input produces a predictable change rather than an unexplained one.
The site and the platform are built to WCAG 2.2 AA and tested against it. The full statement, including how to report a barrier, is on the accessibility page.
Ask the hard ones
Method, audit trail, data handling, equality duty. We would rather answer them early.