Three timed questions. AI scoring on your scorecard. A ranked shortlist in your inbox.
The first read is the bottleneck. It is slow, inconsistent and costly—and it happens before anyone has demonstrated they can do the work.
A single role can pull hundreds of applications. Most are a poor fit, and one-click apply has made the noise worse.
CVs get skimmed for seconds or sit in a queue for weeks. Good candidates go cold while the pile grows.
Two reviewers, two verdicts. Without a shared rubric, screening drifts with mood, fatigue and gut feel.
Senior people spend hours triaging applications that should never have reached them.
Three timed questions sit at the very top of your funnel. Everything after is automatic.
30 seconds and 250 characters each. The friction is deliberate — it filters out low-effort, one-click applicants before they reach you.
Each response is scored on the job-relevant criteria you define. Consistent, every time, for the first applicant and the four-hundredth.
Top candidates first, delivered to your inbox — before anyone reaches an assessment centre or a hiring manager’s desk.
You tell us which of motivation, competence or values matters most for the role, and we handle the weighting from there. You are customising the questions, not learning a scoring system.
Whether the response actually addresses what was asked, not a rehearsed answer to a different question.
Concrete examples and reasoning over vague statements anyone could have written.
How clearly the answer is expressed, grammar included, as a proxy for written skill on the job.
Pick what matters most for this hire. That is the whole configuration.
Thirty seconds and 250 characters aren’t a usability compromise—they’re the mechanism. They raise the cost of a low-effort application and reward genuine engagement, so the people who care rise to the top on their own.
A stakeholder disputes a number in your report the morning it ships. Walk us through your first three moves.
Start with a Quick Screen to cut a long list down fast, or a Deep Screen when you want evidence rather than instinct. Either one ranks your applicants down to the ten worth your time. Then, if you want, hand those ten to The Assessment: an in-person assessment centre that returns a final two to four, ranked. Take one package, or all three.
Three questions, 90 seconds each. Instinct under pressure.
Three questions, 3 minutes each. Evidence over instinct.
Both tiers ask about motivation, competence and values. The difference is what they surface: Quick Screen tests instinct, Deep Screen tests evidence.
An in-person assessment centre for the ten who make the cut.
One example per category. We keep the full bank private — publishing it would let candidates pre-plan and defeat the point.
“In a sentence or two, what drew you to this role, and what do you want to achieve in it?”
“What do you think is the hardest part of this role, and how would you handle it?”
Generated from the job description“What is your biggest professional weakness right now, and what are you doing about it?”
A fourth, situational question can be added, for example “a team member calls in sick on the day of a big deliverable, what do you do?”
You get a link to share. Put it in the job ad, send it to candidates directly, or add it to your existing process.
The AI screen is a fixed price per role. The assessment centre is charged on a hire — typical recruitment agencies charge around 25%.
Poor visibility is one of the most cited failures of recruitment. So the candidate side is built to be short, clear and honest, on the device most people will actually use.
Where every candidate sits in the funnel.
Where they personally sit, and what happens next.
This step touches hiring decisions, so it has to read as fair and rigorous. Scoring runs on job-relevant scorecard criteria only. The ranked ladder is objective; people still make the hiring decision.
The ladder ranks; it never rejects. Your team decides who to move forward—with a consistent, auditable score behind every position.
Every score comes with its reasoning in writing — a sentence or two on why that score, and not a higher or lower one. If you are ever asked why a candidate ranked where they did, you have the answer.
Answered the scenario directly with a specific, ordered plan and named the key trade-off. Clear and concise.
Sound judgement and relevant, but stayed general where a concrete example would have carried more weight.
Built for auditability — for the HR and legal teams who need to stand behind a decision.
From graduate intake to director search—wherever volume outpaces the time to review it well. The scorecard changes with the role; the screening step stays the same.
We’re talking to hiring teams now. Tell us about your funnel and we’ll be in touch.