Good candidates go elsewhere while your process catches up
.avif)






Who stays accountable
.avif)






























No. It ranks against criteria you define and flags gaps for a human to review. Every candidate outcome is decided by a person. This is a deliberate line and we will not cross it, because automated rejection is both a legal exposure and a bad way to hire.
A screener trained on past hiring can reproduce past bias, and that is a real risk rather than a theoretical one. It ranks against explicit criteria you set rather than inferring from historic outcomes, rankings are reviewable with the reasoning logged, and a person makes every decision. You should still review the criteria themselves with employment counsel.
In several US jurisdictions, yes, with requirements that can include bias auditing and candidate notice. Obligations depend on where you hire and how the tool is used. This needs confirming with employment counsel for your jurisdictions before deployment. See open items.
No. It answers routine handbook questions. Anything touching employee relations, grievances, or a sensitive matter routes to your HR lead immediately.
It assembles inputs and flags anomalies before the run. It does not process, approve, or fund payroll. Agents never move money.
Engagement patterns in systems you already run. What it can see and what it flags are configured with you, and this one warrants a deliberate conversation about employee privacy before it is switched on.