A recruiter with sixty applications and an afternoon does the same thing every time: skims for keywords, keeps the ones that look close, and moves on. It is not carelessness. It is arithmetic. The cost is that a good engineer with a terse one-page CV loses to a weaker one who wrote more.
Software is genuinely good at this part — reading every CV properly, against every requirement, without getting tired at application forty. What it is bad at is the thing it is usually sold for: turning that reading into a verdict on a person.
So this example does the first and refuses the second. It reads all four CVs against the brief, shows the evidence for every line, and hands a recruiter a shorter job than they started with. It never rejects anyone.
Evidence or nothing
Every verdict quotes the line it came from. Where there is no line, it says so rather than inferring one.
Silence is not a no
A requirement the CV never mentions is recorded as unaddressed, not as absent. These are different facts and they are kept apart.
The score shows its working
Weights, statuses and arithmetic are all on the page. A percentage nobody can check is worse than no percentage.
The decision stays with a person
The system reads and sorts. It does not reject anyone, and there is no threshold at which it starts.
The two to compare
Rahul scores 46%. Vikram scores 37%. Those numbers look like the same kind of answer and they are not. Vikram’s CV names its whole stack, and the things the role needs are not in it — he stays at 37% even if every question goes his way. Rahul’s CV is one page of skills with no detail, so most of what he is missing is information rather than ability, and he reaches 93% on the same test. Open them both.
