Score applications against the written requisition, keep the ranking, the notice and the impact figures together, and hand the shortlist to the named recruiter who decides who is interviewed.
The written requisition sets the criteria, and the score records which of them moved it.
02
The output is a rank, and where the line falls under that rank is drawn by a person.
Reason
03
Selection rate, scoring rate and impact ratio go to the record, and so does the unknown count.
04
A fit score makes the tool an automated employment decision tool under NYC Admin. Code 20-870.
05
Candidate notice runs ten business days ahead of use, so a requisition without one is not scored.
Decide
06
A vendor-supplied score is treated as a consumer-report question, not as a product feature.
07
Postcode, school and gaps in work history are flagged as proxies before they are weighed.
Out
08
A ranking carries the day it ran and the adverse-impact benchmark in force on that day.
09
Write to the tracker only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Reading, scoring and record-keeping belong to the agent. The shortlist belongs to a named recruiter, who takes it into the hiring decision and owns it there.
2Criteria fixed and versionedThe written criteria, the weights, the notice already served and the day that set was fixed
3Scored and ranked apartThe score, the rank, the features that moved it and the criteria it was read against
4Controls appliedProxy checks, notice checks, impact-ratio checks and scoring confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nobody leaves the pool at any of them — the agent is ranking, and the recruiter lane opens at the shortlist gate.
5DecisionSplits at the shortlist gate
Impact ratios within tolerance
Goes to the named recruiter to shortlist.
Anything skewed
Adds a talent-lead read first.
Recruiter review
The ranking is held with its criteria, its impact figures and the applications it was drawn from.
Shortlist · Return to pool · Send to talent lead
Shortlisted — by the named recruiter▼
6Tracker and notice records updatedOnly where write access and hiring records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedImpact ratios, notice timing, recruiter corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each recruiter correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Rejecting an applicant on a score.
Deciding who is interviewed.
Setting where the shortlist line falls.
Signing a bias audit or its published summary.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Read each application against the written criteria.
✓Record the selection rate and the scoring rate for each category.
✓Hold the ranking until the notice is evidenced.
✓Flag postcode, school and gaps in work history as possible proxies.
Nobody leaves the pool except by a named recruiter, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a criterion is job related.
Telling a candidate why they did not advance.
Choosing which requisitions the agent scores.
Changes to the criteria, weights or notice.
Example output
One scored application, annotated
This serves a talent team who may have to explain a rejection years after the requisition closed; below is one scored application exactly as the agent leaves it.
Scored application · single requisitionIllustrative example
Score
Recorded as
Requisition
Evidence of record
Confidence
Held for
Data engineer, London office
Scored above the sample median
A rank, not a decision
Application form, 3 August 2026
Held unshortlisted
The named recruiter, by name
As receivedBuilt from the application form and the written requisition alone, and it claims nothing beyond them.
What the record holdsApplication formWritten criteriaNotice served
Why no rejection hereCutting a candidate from the pool is a judgement the recruiter makes.
ActionShortlistReturn to poolSend to talent lead
What the score decidesBelow the set threshold a ranking gets a talent-lead read before the recruiter sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Each scoreFrom the application that carries it
03Evidence
Where the evidence is used
The agent does not vouch for an applicant, only for what the application says, when it arrived, and how the score was built from it.
01Approved path
It learns who got hired
Train a model on a decade of past hires and it reproduces them fluently: change nothing on a CV but the name, and the rank moves.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
The four-fifths rule sits at 29 CFR 1607.4(D) and was read there on 20 August 2026, but OFCCP removes its own copy at 41 CFR 60-3 on 26 October 2026 and the EEOC has a rescission at final-rule stage, so a ranking records which benchmark it was measured against and the date that benchmark applied.
04Build an evidence trail
The application, the score it drew and the recruiter who shortlisted it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Applicant trackingGreenhouse · Lever · Workday Applications, stages and outcomes
Requisition and criteriaJob specs · rubrics · weights Written criteria of record
Candidate-supplied documentsCVs · forms · screening answers What the applicant chose to send us
Agent
Candidate screening and ranking
Reads the applications Scores and ranks Holds for the recruiter
A requisition-level impact figure can read clean while high-volume entry-level roles carry most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by requisition class, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
High-volume entry-level roles
14.3%
3.7×
Review
Multi-jurisdiction requisitions
10.1%
2.6×
Review
Career-changer applications
6.3%
1.6×
Watch
Established specialist roles
2.9%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. specialist-role baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a thinned pool costs
A cycle ends when the group thinned at one stage alone is a standing case. That suite is what the next requisition run is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on high-volume entry-level roles.
02Diagnose
The requisition whose shortlist quietly stopped holding anyone with a break in their work history is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
The shortlist goes out numbered, and the scores beneath it ride with it.
04Verify
One impact case still failing is enough to hold the shortlist back.
05Learn
It is kept for good, and the scoring rules change in that same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next ranking is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, scoring and ranking, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Requisition criteria and automation-boundary scope.
02Tracker, requisition and vendor sources.
03Application-to-score and criteria-coverage mapping.
04Applicant source ingestion.
05Criteria, weight and score binding.
06Impact scoring and review routing.
07Recruiter shortlist workflow.
08Applicant-tracker integration.
09Impact and scoring cases.
10Guardrails and shortlist controls.
11Score-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne requisition, one cycleProductionProduction hiring workflowAdvancedMultiple requisitions / jurisdictions
Introduced at Pilot
Scoring to your written criteria✓✓✓
Named recruiter shortlisting✓✓✓
Applicant-pool baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by requisition class—✓✓
Recruiter review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Tracker-and-source integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-source applications——✓
Cross-requisition ranking packs——✓
Large applicant pools——✓
Multi-jurisdiction notice controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, application volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your live requisitions and the criteria each is scored against→Criteria capture and notice versioningWeek 1
02Representative applications, tracker fields and vendor scores→Source binding, scoring logic and the applicant-pool baselineWeek 2
03Your hiring calendar and the recruiters it names→Criteria mapping, notice binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to the tracker APIs, feeds or exports→Tracker, requisition and vendor source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Rankings you would not want audited→Impact cases and the failure roundWeek 4
06What no score may establish→Impact scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named recruiter who shortlists→Release to the named recruiter, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
The fifth week carries two bands because those two phases coincide, not to make the column read better.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Criteria discovery, notice versioning and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the applicant-pool baselineW3Scoring, ranking logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, impact cases and the failure roundW5Tracker integration, pilot rankings and targeted correctionsW6One hiring cycle run under the talent lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandNo bar runs past the weeks its own work is named for, and week five is shared by design.
At the end of W6When the score record validates, Agent Care adopts the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · HR AI agent
Build a candidate screening agent around the ranking your last requisition never wrote down.
Show us one requisition you run each quarter and the criteria behind the last shortlist. If nobody can name the benchmark it was measured against, the answer is a date rather than a rule: Title VII has not moved, and the instrument that measured it is leaving.
