It compares what you prioritize with what EVO prioritizes, returns the gap in plain text, and sets each of your patterns against the real outcome of the hires.
Everyone has implicit criteria, and nobody can see their own. The tools on the market sell diversity filters for the recruiter to apply to candidates; none of them returns a portrait of how the recruiter decides.
You see, side by side, which dimension you approve on more and which dimension EVO would approve on. And then you see which of the two was right, from what happened to the people who were hired.
The divergence appears in paired bars, dimension by dimension, with how much each side weighs. Where you agree, it shows as aligned.
The text alongside is deliberately free of judgment: it may be a conscious strategy of yours, hunting for talent on a fast climb is a legitimate thesis, or a pattern worth watching.
"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.
If 71% of your trajectory-based shortlists became hires that lasted past 90 days, the pattern that looked like bias was delivering. If the evidence-based ones converted less, that shows up too.
It is what separates a mirror from a judgment: it shows the pattern and then shows the result, without deciding for you which one is right.
"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.In a feature about bias, the worst outcome would be the feature itself making things up. That is why the division of labor is rigid.
Rejection and shortlist reasons, distribution by dimension and the real outcome at 90 days and 12 months feeding back into the analyses.
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