It interviews whoever asked for the position, points out what does not add up, and refuses to write the description while a blocker is still open. You leave the conversation with the role corrected, and with the argument ready to take to the hiring manager.
The description arrives finished, or gets written in fifteen minutes by copying the last similar one. The search tool takes what it was given and goes looking. Four weeks later the pipeline is empty and nobody can say which requirement is to blame.
Before the first search, it challenges each weak point with evidence and a practical consequence. What was a matter of opinion ("I think they need English") becomes a conversation about data ("fluent English cuts 3% off the remaining funnel, is it worth it?").
There are eight dimensions of discovery: business and context, the problem to solve, permanent scope, short-term mission, governance and autonomy, the current environment, technical and behavioral profile, market and feasibility.
Each answer you give becomes a captured fact, tagged with the dimension it belongs to. The panel shows how many dimensions already have substance and which are still empty.
Got it. So the pain is not a shortage of technical people, it is that nobody can see the status of the queue. Let me record that:
Every challenge has the same anatomy: the claim in one sentence, the argument in three paragraphs (what we observed, what it means, what it will cost) and a concrete suggestion. You accept, propose something else, or take the risk and state why.
A blocker stops the drafting. A warning does not stop it, but it is recorded. And there is one challenge, discrimination and legal risk, that has no option to take the risk.
Of the responsibilities we captured, six are people leadership: defining what each analyst works on, running development plans and 1:1s, and owning the team’s capacity.
The practical consequence: you will attract a strong IC who turns down the management part, or a manager who accepts and then asks for the title back. Both scenarios cost you a cycle.
Reclassify as Team Leader and keep the scope. The range goes up ~25%: salary intel estimates R$ 18–24k for a Discovery TL in São Paulo, against R$ 14–19k for a senior specialist.
"I want your confirmation on both blockers before I write. I am not drafting this with the wrong seniority."
For each challenge, EVO assembles the text ready for you to send to whoever asked for the role, in the structure that works in a negotiation: acknowledgment, data, proposal, and the consequence of not changing.
And if the manager prefers to answer directly, they get a link. No account to create, nothing to install: they answer the agenda, and the answer comes back as a confirmed fact that reprocesses the description.
"Rafael, the scope you described makes complete sense, and that is exactly why it does not fit under a senior specialist title. Of the responsibilities we captured, six are people management: development plans, 1:1s, performance plans and team capacity.
If we open it as a specialist role, we will attract strong technical people who turn down the management part, or a manager who takes the title and asks for a correction in six months. The range for a Discovery Team Leader in São Paulo is R$ 18–24k, against R$ 14–19k for a senior specialist.
I propose we reclassify and keep the scope. If budget blocks it, the alternative is to take people management out of the scope, but then we need to decide who looks after the three analysts."
acknowledgment → data → proposal → consequence · source: seniority canon + salary base
Each one fires on a deterministic rule. The model comes in only afterwards, to draft the argument, which means the rule does not vanish when the model changes version or mood.
Searchability and completeness are also calculated in code: arithmetic, not an estimate from the model.
Target companies, adjacent titles and career signals, all editable. Live sweep on your own account, at your own pace.
See inside →GuideInterview sheetA guide per stage with a rubric of anchors, signals to look for and red flags, plus probes built from that candidate’s gaps.
See inside →TestsEVO AssessA technical test generated from the role, languages with spoken assessment at CEFR level, and behavioral, with a live defense of the work.
See inside →It takes a real role to see EVO work, not a canned example.
Start using it