Read the ranking and fit evidence
Every row is a decision summary; every claim in the evidence panel is the CV's own line — quoted, never generated.
The ranking table
The requisition page's hero is the ranked table: rank, candidate, Fit, Weighted skills, Why this match and Stage, with a + shortlist action per row. As the header notes: this is AI-assisted screening — a human makes the hiring decision.
Fit is shown as a band first, score second:
- Strong match — score 70+
- Good match — 45–69
- Partial match — 25–44
- Limited match — below 25
- Needs review — nothing could be compared (for example a JD with no extractable skills). An unscored candidate is never shown as a zero.
Weighted skills is a ratio against your own criteria — "19 of 25 weighted skills" — and Why this match is a one-line summary ordered by your slider weights ("Strong: … · Probe: …").
The fit peek panel
Click any row and the evidence panel opens beside the table (the table stays visible for comparison). It contains:
- Dimensions — skills / relevant experience / education bars, each with an ⓘ explaining its computation, plus the printed formula ("Overall = 50% skills + 30% experience + 20% education").
- Matched — with the CV's own line — matched skills grouped by your priority tiers ("5/5 priority" downwards), each with a quoted line from the candidate's CV. Citations are deterministic: if no clean line exists, nothing is fabricated to fill the slot.
- Gaps to probe on your call — missing skills with their weights. As the panel puts it: "Ordered by the weight you set — a 5/5 gap is a question to ask, not automatically a rejection." (On the hiring-manager portal the same list reads "Gaps to probe at interview", because by then an interview is genuinely the next step.)
Why a 15-year career can score low on experience
The experience bar is labelled relevant experience, and that word is doing the work: it counts role-relevant years — time in this role or an adjacent one — and not years worked. It is not a seniority score and not a measure of how long someone has been in the industry.
So a data architect with fifteen years behind them can score in the thirties against a Lead Data Analyst requisition, because almost none of those years were analyst years. That is the ranking working, not failing — but it is a number to read, not a verdict to act on. Adjacent roles that overlap the JD's skills transfer at half credit rather than being zeroed, so a genuine career transition still scores; open the ⓘ on the bar for the full method.
Keyboard: press j / k to walk down/up the ranking and Esc to close — the panel footer reminds you ("j / k to walk · Esc closes").
From peek to profile
Open full profile → opens the candidate in the context of this requisition — a bar reads "Viewing as applicant for …" with a switcher for their other applications and a "← Back to ranking" link. The profile's foldable Fit for [role] card repeats the row summary and expands into the same full evidence, including every matched skill with its citation.
For the candidate-consented signals on that profile — authenticity, cover letter, drills — see Verified Prep and defensibility.