Canonical reference record · controlled proof-of-concept
YT-WM-001 · The Chloe Taylor Case
Server-rendered reference artefact for the canonical synthetic walkthrough. This is not a live applicant record, production decision log or claim of autonomous decision-making. It does not automatically mirror edits made during an interactive browser session; the current-session protected record is shown in Stage 9 of the guided walkthrough.
Machine Input
61/100 · DO NOT PROGRESS
Original simulated ATS output preserved
RILayer Check
NOT READY → READY
Evidence, process risk and boundaries reviewed
Evidence Change
CHRONOLOGY RECONCILED
Provider clarification appended to the evidence history
Human Action
PROCEED · REASON RECORDED
Named reviewer authorises structured-interview progression
01 · Signal & Inputs
Approved evidence separated from non-approved factors
- Approved: Level 2 English and Maths or equivalent
- Approved: Level 3 qualification or equivalent practical evidence
- Approved: Basic spreadsheet competence
- Approved: Evidence of accuracy, administration and record handling
- Approved: Communication with colleagues or customers
- Approved: Capacity to learn with normal induction and support
- Not approved: Continuous employment history
- Not approved: Absence of employment gaps
- Not approved: Number of LinkedIn keywords
- Not approved: Disability or neurodivergence
- Not approved: Whether reasonable adjustments are needed
- Not approved: Two years of finance experience
02 · Machine Input
61/100 · DO NOT PROGRESS
- THIS IS AN INPUT — NOT THE DECISION
- Configured threshold: 74
- ATS confidence: 74%
- The configured progression threshold and ATS confidence are different quantities. RILayer preserves both as machine-context information and does not calculate a replacement score.
03 · Evidence
The adverse recommendation contains supported observations and non-approved inferences. It is not decision-ready.
- Supported: Education baseline · English & Maths · Spreadsheet training · Finance-admin exposure · Record handling · Customer service
- Conflict / missing: Oakfield dates differ · No independent placement clarification yet · Reason for wider date range unresolved
- Assumption / proxy: Gap → lower reliability · Keyword density → lower suitability · Date mismatch → credibility risk
- Restricted: Autism disclosure · Interview adjustment request · Purpose-bound only
04 · Decision Readiness
NOT READY FOR AN ADVERSE FINAL DECISION → READY FOR HUMAN DECISION
- Decision Readiness asks whether sufficient authorised evidence, clarity, boundaries and authority exist for the next governed decision step. It is not a measure of the person’s worth, wellbeing or suitability, and it is distinct from CALM reflective availability.
- Most essential criteria already have evidence
- One material date conflict remains unresolved
- ATS uses a continuity factor that is not approved
- Keyword weighting is weakly related to stated criteria
- Adjustment information remains outside suitability assessment
05 · Governance Risk
Risk belongs to the decision process — never to Chloe
- Governance Risk is risk arising from the interpretation, evidence, process, system input, boundary, authority or decision pathway. It must not be used as a risk score about the person.
- R1 · HIGH · Premature rejection: A non-approved continuity factor materially affects the score.
- R2 · MEDIUM · Unresolved evidence: A date conflict may be misread as unreliability before checking.
- R3 · MEDIUM · Proxy language: Keyword density can hide relevant evidence described differently.
- R4 · HIGH · Sensitive-data misuse: Adjustment data could be exposed beyond its legitimate purpose.
- R5 · MEDIUM · Score opacity: A numerical threshold can conceal whether its ingredients are authorised, evidenced or relevant.
06 · Boundaries
What RILayer cannot conclude — and what it may do
- Cannot conclude: Employment gap = low reliability
- Cannot conclude: Date mismatch = dishonesty
- Cannot conclude: Autism = reduced competence or readiness
- Cannot conclude: Adjustment request = negative selection factor
- Cannot conclude: Missing keywords = missing capability
- Cannot conclude: ATS recommendation = final decision
- May: Identify the date inconsistency
- May: Ask for proportionate clarification
- May: Map evidence to the approved criteria
- May: Show that non-approved factors affected the score
- May: Route adjustment information separately
- May: Preserve an auditable human reason
07 · Route
SEEK EVIDENCE · PAUSED — NOT REJECTED
- Required: Confirm formal Oakfield placement dates
- Required: Clarify whether February / July refer to induction or handover
- Required: Review selection configuration so continuity scoring is excluded
- Not required: Medical details explaining the transition period
- Not required: Proof that autism caused or did not cause a gap
- Not required: Additional personal disclosure unrelated to the role criteria
- Evidence return: Chloe attended pre-placement induction on 17 February 2025. Her formal finance-administration placement ran from 3 March to 27 June 2025. She attended a project handover session on 4 July 2025.
- Reconciliation: CV = formal placement dates · Profile = wider induction-to-handover period
08 · Human Decision
PROCEED TO STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
- Reviewer: Emma Hughes · Early Careers Recruitment Lead
- Reason: The applicant appears to evidence the essential baseline. The source documents initially conflicted on placement dates and the machine score included a continuity factor that is not part of the approved role criteria. Proportionate clarification reconciled the chronology before an adverse decision was made.
- NOT A JOB OFFER — this is a governed progression decision.
- Candidate decision remains separate: Chloe may accept or decline the structured interview.
09 · Decision Evidence Record
Machine input preserved → human reason recorded
- Machine Input: 61/100 · DO NOT PROGRESS — Original simulated ATS output preserved
- RILayer Check: NOT READY → READY — Evidence, process risk and boundaries reviewed
- Evidence Change: CHRONOLOGY RECONCILED — Provider clarification appended to the evidence history
- Human Action: PROCEED · REASON RECORDED — Named reviewer authorises structured-interview progression