Read candidate evidence in context
Course overview · 4 min reading + 12 min practice, estimated
Principles and method
Distinguish a person’s contribution from the team or organisation’s result. A title can describe different levels of responsibility across employers. Capture the scale, environment, task and evidence of contribution without filling gaps from assumptions. Career breaks or short tenures are questions only where relevant; they are not automatic evidence of poor performance. Keep direct statements separate from third-party claims. If evidence is incomplete, define a respectful verification question. Give candidates an opportunity to correct material inaccuracies before relying on them in a consequential decision.
Worked example
A profile says the candidate worked on a £10m programme. The brief records programme exposure, not ownership of the entire budget. A follow-up asks which decisions and deliverables the candidate personally owned.
Put it into practice
Rewrite three fictional profile claims into evidence notes and follow-up questions.
Use fictional information and keep your work in your own notes.
Compare your approach: self-review guidance
Use restrained language such as contributed to until ownership is established. Preserve context and source dates. Avoid turning absence of a listed skill into proof that the person lacks it.
Sources and further reading
Original Academy teaching and fictional examples. These references provide context, not endorsement. Edition 2026.09; updated 2026-09-24.
- CIPD: Recruitment
Professional context for the recruitment lifecycle.
- ICO: Recruitment and selection
UK guidance. Check its current status and updates before implementation.