How we write assessment and report language responsibly.
Recruitment assessment copy must be clear enough for agencies to use and careful enough to avoid turning candidates into simplistic labels.
Editorial principles.
The way a report is written can change how a recruiter treats a candidate. That is why language is part of product quality.
Plain English
Recruiters and clients should understand what a signal means without needing a psychometrics glossary.
No overclaiming
Copy should not imply the software knows more than the evidence can support.
Human review
Every important output should preserve the recruiter’s responsibility to verify and decide.
Words we are careful with.
Certain words can make a decision-support tool sound like an automatic decision engine.
| Risky wording | Safer agency wording |
|---|---|
| “Selected by the platform” | “Recommended for recruiter review” |
| “Failed the assessment” | “Risk area to verify before advancing” |
| “Proves fit” | “Provides evidence that may support fit” |
| “Diagnosed as…” | “Shows a pattern that may be worth discussing” |
Corrections and updates.
If wording is unclear, too strong, or not useful for recruiters, it should be corrected.
What we review
- Accuracy of assessment explanations.
- Tone and fairness toward candidates.
- Client-safe summary language.
- Human-oversight wording.
- Grammar, clarity, and localization quality.
How to report an issue
Email the page URL, the sentence you are concerned about, and why it may be misleading or unclear. We prioritize corrections that affect candidate fairness or recruiter decision quality.
Common questions.
Direct answers about how this policy gets applied.
Who decides if wording violates the policy?
Corrections are prioritized based on candidate fairness and recruiter decision quality — anyone can flag a concern by emailing the page URL and the specific sentence in question.
Does this policy apply to every language version of the site?
Yes — localization quality is explicitly listed among what gets reviewed, alongside accuracy and tone.
Why avoid words like “selected by the platform”?
That phrasing implies the software made the decision; the safer wording (“recommended for recruiter review”) keeps the recruiter’s role in the decision visible in the language itself.
What happens after I report a wording issue?
It’s reviewed against these editorial principles — accuracy, fairness, human-oversight language — and corrected if it’s found to overstate what the evidence supports.
Why this matters for agencies.
Clear language helps agencies defend their process without overstating what an assessment can do.