skills/resume-match/references/matching-rubric.md

# Matching rubric

## Requirements and evidence

Create one evidence row per meaningful requirement. Preserve employer wording, AND/OR branches, allowed substitutions, minimum versus preferred language, and deadlines. Separate mandatory conditions, core responsibilities, strong preferences, secondary preferences, and employer context. A core duty is not automatically an application prerequisite. Classify boilerplate by meaning: explicit mandatory conditions still count. Preferred does not automatically mean important; honor an explicit minor bonus.

Retain requirement text/location, importance, best candidate evidence/location, evidence class, status, and impact. Deduplicate repeated requirements so repeated keywords do not increase weight.

Evidence classes: Direct / Strongly transferable / Adjacent / Unverified / Contradicted. Transferable work can support a functional requirement but cannot replace an exact degree, license, clearance, or certification unless that condition explicitly allows a substitution. General equivalent-experience language does not automatically apply to a separately mandatory credential. A training course is not a professional credential.

Missing evidence is unknown. A true gap requires facts establishing absence or insufficiency. An expired card proves that card expired, not necessarily that no current credential exists elsewhere. Preserve the scope of the candidate's statements.

Count relevant experience as of the assessment date. Do not sum overlapping calendar intervals. Distinguish elapsed tenure, relevant duty experience, part-time work, and full-time-equivalent hours. Preserve years-only dates as ranges; do not invent months or assume intermittent projects were continuous. Calculate carefully near thresholds. Do not ask for exact months when the known minimum already meets the requirement.

## Eligibility and functional fit

For mandatory items use Meets / Likely meets / Unknown / Likely does not meet / Does not meet. Overall eligibility: Stated requirements met / Unresolved / Likely blocker / Known blocker / Posting ambiguous. These are documentary assessments against employer requirements, not independent credential checks or legal eligibility decisions.

Honor timing: required at application, by start date, or obtainable after hire. A later condition is not an automatic application-time blocker. Keep clearly employer-provided post-hire training conditions separate from current eligibility: uncertainty about completing a future course need not imply that an otherwise eligible candidate should not apply. Assess feasibility only from supplied facts; otherwise mark unresolved. Do not infer work authorization from residence or citizenship from a name. Remote location restrictions, schedules, and mandatory physical tasks remain unknown unless established. Flag accommodation or employer-policy questions without making legal judgments or inferring ability from disability.

For contradictory postings, show the material readings and outcomes. An implausible mandatory requirement remains explicit until clarified; do not silently downgrade it to preferred.

| Functional fit | Decision anchor |
|---|---|
| Strong | Direct or strong transferable evidence for nearly all central work; only minor gaps |
| Good | Central work credibly supported with manageable gaps |
| Plausible | Useful foundation with major gaps, transfer risks, or uncertainties |
| Weak | Most central work not demonstrated or major deficits established |
| Insufficient information | Too little employer or candidate detail to identify the central match |

A strong functional fit can coexist with a credential blocker: lead with the blocker. An unknown credential remains unresolved, not proven ineligible. Use High / Medium / Low confidence based on evidence completeness and clarity. Explain differences between confidence in a clear blocker and confidence in uncertain functional fit. This is not a judgment of candidate honesty or worth.

## Priorities and gaps

Prioritize actual responsibilities, central skills, relevant experience/recency, responsibility scope, domain context, and nonblocking credentials. Keep mandatory eligibility and hard user constraints separate. Use qualitative comparisons, not numerical scores: the original planning document's weights were illustrative and have not been calibrated. Never report ATS percentages or hiring probabilities.

Assess only dimensions the posting supports. Unspecified education is neither a perfect match nor a deficit. Resume wording affects demonstrated evidence, not the underlying facts.

Rank strongest matches by employer importance, usually three to five when supported. Classify weaknesses as True gap / Missing evidence / Weakly demonstrated / Transferability risk / Presentation problem / Posting ambiguity; impact is Blocking / Major / Moderate / Minor. Do not force a fixed number. Ask a precise question for a missing fact rather than adding it as an assumption.

## Qualification level

Evaluate experience depth, functional skill, education/credentials, decision scope, management scope, and domain seniority separately. Use Below / Aligned / Above / Unknown / Not material; credentials can use Below / Meets / Exceeds / Unknown / Not material. Explain mixed axes rather than averaging them.

Overqualification needs a meaningful scope mismatch, not age, years alone, or resume length. Above-minimum tenure does not imply boredom, salary demands, or likely departure. Compare compensation only with stated expectations or separately grounded evidence. An intentional step-down leaves above-level scope intact while improving preference alignment. Never hide official titles to make a candidate appear junior.

Check requirement alternatives, blocker logic, provenance, date calculations near thresholds, and consistency between the axes and opening verdict before delivery.