Different words, same work
Somebody who solved your problem under another job title or on another system is surfaced and explained rather than filtered out.
RANKED · EVIDENCE ATTACHED
FEATURE 02 / SCREENING AND SCORING
240 applications, read before Friday.
A keyword filter throws away the best person for missing a noun. Screening reads every application against the criteria your team agreed, ranks them, and shows the exact lines that produced each score so a debrief can check the work.
EVERY APPLICANT READEVERY SCORE CITEDWEIGHTINGS ARE YOURS
WHAT SCREENING ACTUALLY DOES
The three ways a good candidate gets thrown away.
Most screening fails for boring reasons: the wrong word, the wrong format, and nobody having time to read past page one.
A CV is whatever they sent
Documents, scans, exports and one-page portfolios are all read, including the badly formatted ones nobody wants to open.
Stated, not hidden
Each score names what is missing as clearly as what is present, so the risk is visible before the interview rather than during it.
ZOOMED IN / ONE SHORTLISTA RANK THAT SURVIVES A DEBRIEF
Open the score. Read the sentence behind it.
Every rank is a sum of weighted criteria, and every criterion cites the source: a line in the CV, an answer to a screening question, a moment in a call transcript with the timestamp attached.
If the hiring manager disagrees with the weighting, they change it in front of you and the whole list re-sorts. The argument becomes about the criteria, which is the argument worth having.
- Scored against criteria your team agreed, not a generic model
- Every criterion cites its source line
- Weightings visible and adjustable, with instant re-sort
- Gaps and risks stated explicitly
- A rejection reason a candidate can actually be told
WHAT IT TELLS THE TEAM
Whether you are all scoring the same way.
Consistency is the part of screening nobody measures, and the part that gets challenged first.
Which criterion filters
Score spread per criterion, so you can see whether one requirement is doing all the rejecting.
Where humans disagree
How often the team moves a candidate against the rank, and what the agent was missing when they did.
Applied to shortlisted
Elapsed hours from application to a shortlist decision, per role.
Did the score predict
Scores compared against who was actually hired, so the criteria improve on evidence rather than opinion.
CONTACT / TALK TO ATSIFLY
Start with one role.
Send us twenty past hires and twenty past rejections. We will calibrate the scoring against how your team actually decides.
Talk to Atsifly