Review borderline and rejected cases
Course overview · 4 min reading + 12 min practice, estimated
Principles and method
A review sample can reveal inconsistent interpretation or hidden preferences. Examine cases near the progression boundary and a sample of rejections, using the original criteria and evidence. Do not change standards solely to favour a preferred individual. If a criterion is revised because it was poorly specified, consider all affected candidates and document the change. Keep a clear reason for progression or rejection and an appropriate communication route. Screening quality should be evaluated with downstream evidence and candidate feedback, not simply the percentage rejected.
Worked example
A reviewer finds that one screener rejects adjacent-industry applicants while another progresses them. The team clarifies the transferability rule and rechecks affected cases rather than averaging the two screeners’ pass rates.
Put it into practice
Review four fictional borderline records and write a calibration note.
Use fictional information and keep your work in your own notes.
Compare your approach: self-review guidance
Identify the exact criterion disagreement, the revised interpretation and which earlier decisions need reconsideration. Record uncertainty where further evidence is still required.
Sources and further reading
Original Academy teaching and fictional examples. These references provide context, not endorsement. Edition 2026.09; updated 2026-09-24.
- CIPD: Selection methods
Professional context for selection methods and their limitations.
- GOV.UK: Discrimination in recruitment
UK legal context. Obtain advice for your jurisdiction and circumstances.