Current title
Senior Systems Engineer
“Current role: Senior Systems Engineer”
Evidence linked
Candidate intake
Stop typing CVs into the CRM.
Add a supported candidate document and RecruitmentStrike can prepare the record without re-keying every field. Each extracted value keeps the passage it came from, while values set by a consultant stay marked as human edits. Missing evidence stays missing.
Cleaner candidate data. Better inputs for every placement decision.
Candidate intake · demo data Review required
- Document
- avery-morgan-cv.pdf · fictional data
- Outcome
- Candidate record prepared
- Current title
- Senior Systems Engineer · evidence linked
- Notice period
- Not evidenced · ask candidate
- Possible duplicate
- No proposal raised
- Next action
- Review candidate record
The admin drag
The CV arrives once. The same data gets typed again and again.
Candidate details are copied into the CRM, ATS, notes and shortlist. Under pressure, that is also the first job to be skipped.
RecruitmentStrike treats the document as a source. The record, the passages behind it and the next review point stay connected.
Document boundary
- Reads
- Digital PDF, DOCX and plain text
- Does not read
- Image-only scans or legacy .doc
- Does not verify
- Identity, qualifications or right to work
The handoff
A document in. A reviewable record out.
Candidate intake follows the same evidence-and-review pattern as the work that follows.
Candidate intake
A supported CV becomes a reviewable record without the re-keying.
- arrives
Document added
PDF, DOCX or plain text is filed against the right project.
- prepared
Fields structured
The active recruitment pack defines what belongs on the record.
- receipt
Evidence checked
Every extracted value must match its claimed source passage.
- review
Duplicate proposal
If records may match, the reason returns to a consultant.
- next
Record ready
Review the record, correct it or continue the recruitment workflow.
Field provenance · fictional data
Known, set by a person or still to ask.
These states remain different on purpose. A convincing guess is not evidence, and a consultant correction should not disappear the next time a document is read.
Location
Leeds
Set by the consultant after speaking with the candidate
Human edit protected
Notice period
Not evidenced
The supplied document does not state a notice period
Ask candidate
- An extracted value without a matching source passage is rejected
- Fields outside the active pack stay out of the record
- What the document does not say remains unfilled
- Consultant edits survive when the document is read again
Duplicate review
Likely duplicates are proposed, never silently merged.
The review queue shows why two records may describe the same person. A consultant chooses which record to keep or marks them as different. Until then, both remain separate and usable.
Possible duplicate · fictional data
Human decisionJordan Ellis
Existing candidate record
Jordan Ellis
New CV intake record
Why it matched
- Same email address
- Same telephone number
- Same name and postcode
- Same name, employer and title
The queue explains the strongest matching evidence. It does not bulk-merge or act on a score.
Bring us the CV re-keying problem.
Show us how candidate documents arrive, where the same data gets typed and which decisions your consultants need to keep.