Why should the job ad and screening criteria match?
The job ad sets a public expectation about the work. The screening criteria set the team's private test for evidence. When the two diverge, applicants can be assessed against requirements they could not reasonably infer, while attractive wording in the ad can create inconsistent reviewer decisions.
Selection guidance from CIPD recommends methods that are related to the role and applied consistently. Use the job ad as the starting point, then make the evidence test explicit before opening CVs.
What should be mapped from the job ad?
Copy each meaningful requirement into a working table and add four decisions:
| Job-ad statement | Role outcome | Priority | Acceptable evidence | Missing evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Manage key customer accounts” | Protect renewals and coordinate delivery after sale | Standard | Named account ownership, renewals, adoption, or equivalent customer outcomes | Mark unclear and clarify; do not infer failure |
Do not map adjectives on their own. “Strategic”, “hands-on”, and “excellent communicator” need an action, context, and evidence signal before they can guide review.
How do you test whether a requirement is clear?
Ask three questions for every line:
- What must the person deliver or decide in this role?
- What information could a candidate reasonably provide to demonstrate it?
- Would two reviewers classify the same example in the same way?
If the answer to the first question is vague, return to the hiring manager. If the second is impossible, rewrite the requirement. If the third is uncertain, run a short calibration with a sample CV before publishing or screening.
Worked example: from advert to review rule
Weak ad wording: “You are commercially minded and thrive in a fast-paced environment.”
Better role requirement: “Own the handover from signed contract to first measurable customer outcome.”
Review rule: look for responsibility for onboarding, implementation, adoption, renewals, or a comparable post-sale result. Different job titles and sectors may count. A CV that does not mention the outcome is incomplete evidence, not proof that the person lacks the capability.
What belongs in the ad, and what belongs in the review notes?
Keep the public ad readable. It should explain the work, essential conditions, and useful experience in candidate-facing language. Keep reviewer notes for the operational detail: evidence examples, equivalent terminology, priority, and how uncertainty is recorded.
Skilltage guidance: never use hidden criteria to create a stricter test than the published role without a documented, job-related reason and a human review of the change. If the role changes, update the ad and the screening basis together.
Checklist before candidate intake
- Every hard requirement describes a genuine entry condition.
- Every standard criterion connects to a role outcome.
- Preferences are labelled as preferences rather than silent rejection rules.
- Reviewers have examples of acceptable equivalent evidence.
- Missing, unclear, and contradictory information have explicit treatments.
- One owner can identify the version used for the first review.
Limitations and decision boundaries
An aligned job ad does not prove that a candidate can perform the work. CVs are brief, self-reported documents and may omit relevant evidence. The framework supports a consistent first review; it does not replace interviews, work samples, references, accommodation discussions, or professional judgement.
Skilltage guidance is to preserve the distinction between no evidence and negative evidence. AI-assisted extraction can help surface requirement-level evidence, but a recruiter controls the review state and the decision to progress a candidate.
Continue with structured requirements before reviewing CVs and a 30-minute calibration with the hiring manager.
Next step
Take the current job ad for one open role. Highlight its five most important statements, map each to an outcome and evidence rule, then ask a second reviewer to apply the rules to one sample CV. Rewrite any line that produces a different interpretation.