How it works · Matching & gap analysis
Requirements on one side. Your evidence on the other.
No vibes, no keyword clouds, no opaque compatibility scores. A target is a set of published requirements; your record is a set of confirmed evidence. The comparison between them is arithmetic you can inspect.
Illustrative example below.
Operations Director — 4 of 12 requirements shown
Requirement
State
- Multi-site operational leadershipEvidenced
Led 42-person team across 3 sites — confirmed 2024
- Budget responsibilityPartial
Delegated budget mentioned — scale not yet stated
- Board-level reportingGenuine gap
No evidence in record — genuine gap
- Regulatory complianceEvidenced
CQC inspection lead, 2023 — confirmed
Illustrative example — fixed weights, not a black-box score.
How the result is reached
Five steps, every one inspectable.
- 1
Target requirements
Published requirements for a role or occupation.
- 2
Your confirmed evidence
Only evidence you have entered and confirmed.
- 3
Requirement states
Confirmed, needs clarification, or genuine gap.
- 4
Disclosed fixed weights
Skills, experience and qualifications, weighted the same way every time.
- 5
Auditable result
A readiness figure that links back to the reasoning behind it.
There is no black-box AI score anywhere in this chain. Same inputs, same result — every time, for everyone.
The comparison
Three states, and what each one means.
Confirmed
Your record contains evidence that meets the requirement, and you have confirmed it. The evidence sits beside the result.
Needs clarification
Something relevant exists but is incomplete — usually scale, scope or recency. One focused question often moves it.
Genuine gap
No evidence meets the requirement. Named honestly, because that is what turns it into a development action rather than a rejection.
How a score is reached
Fixed rules. Same inputs, same result.
Readiness is a weighted blend of three deterministic inputs, applied the same way every time.
Skills coverage — 45%
Experience — 30%
Qualifications — 25%
45%
Skills coverage
The share of stated skill requirements your confirmed evidence addresses.
30%
Experience
Whether the depth and recency of your evidence meets the level the role asks for.
25%
Qualifications
Whether named qualification requirements are met, evidenced, or genuinely missing.
The weights are disclosed, the rules are fixed, and every result links to the reasoning behind it. Re-run the same record tomorrow and you get the same number.
What it is not
A measurement, not a verdict.
The output tells you what a target requires versus what you can currently evidence. It never tells you whether you are good enough — that judgement is yours, or an adviser's, never the software's.
- No black-box AI score — every weight is disclosed
- No ranking of people against each other
- No prediction of hiring outcomes
- No profiling data in the blend — ever
Auditable by design
- Every requirement traces to a published taxonomy
- Every confirmed state traces to your own evidence
- Weights and rules are disclosed, not proprietary secrets
Built to be acted on
- Clarifications become focused questions
- Genuine gaps become development actions
- Re-measurement shows whether actions worked
IllustrativeFigures and screens shown are illustrative examples.
Measure yourself against a real target.
Start free, set a target role, and see requirement-by-requirement where you stand.