Rejection and shortlist reasons aggregated, distribution by dimension, and the real outcome of hires at 90 days and 12 months feeding back into the next analyses.
You reject ten candidates for the same reason and, on the next role, the system suggests exactly the same profile. The learning stays in your head, and leaves when you change tools or jobs.
Each decision records the reason in structured vocabulary, and that aggregate enters the context of the next analysis. What you learned becomes an asset of the operation.
When you reject or approve someone, you tag one to three reasons from a fixed taxonomy, plus a free-text note. It is quick to fill in and comparable across people and roles.
The aggregate enters the analysis prompt at four levels, from the most specific to the most general: that role, that client, that job family, and the global one, with a minimum sample for each level to count.
"Of your shortlists based on trajectory, 71% became hires that lasted past 90 days: the pattern that looked like bias is delivering. Shortlists based on evidence converted at only 45%."
Base: 17 closed processes with a recorded outcome · N is still small, read it as a trend.The outcome of the process comes back into the system, and then the 90-day and 12-month check-ins on the person hired. That allows the only question that really matters: was the recommendation actually good?
It is the slowest data to accumulate and the hardest to copy: it depends on years of recorded decisions, not on technology.
"You shortlist on trajectory about 3× more than on evidence: EVO tends to balance those two axes. It may be strategy (hunting for talent on a fast climb) or a pattern worth watching."
ⓘ A reading, with nothing to click. EVO carries this context into calibrating the next assessment, and sets each of your patterns against the real outcome of the hires.
A system that learns and does not explain is a system that goes wrong without anyone noticing. These are the restraints.
Compares what you prioritize with what EVO prioritizes and returns the gap in plain text, set against the real outcome.
See inside →ScreeningAssessment per candidateA score across four dimensions with text for each one, a read of the career, strengths, concerns and gaps, plus the odds of acceptance.
See inside →TeamOrganizations and rolesSeveral hunters, roles with permission per resource, teams and clients. Two-level auditing and a manual on every screen.
See inside →It takes a real role to see EVO work, not a canned example.
Start using it