# Application Critique Framework

> Never collapse candidate-role fit and document polish into one score.

## 1. Hard-Gate Audit

Classify each JD requirement as **Direct**, **Adjacent**, **Gap**, or **Constraint**.

Flag a **NO-GO** when:

- A minimum/required qualification is a Gap.
- A title-defining capability is not Direct.
- The level requires absent scope, such as people management, strategic external-account ownership, or company-wide architecture authority.
- Location, authorization, clearance, travel, or mandatory relocation is unresolved.

An employer's general "apply anyway" message does not erase a title-defining or minimum gap.

## 2. Evidence Fit Score — 0 to 100

Score the candidate-role pairing before reading tailored prose.

| Dimension | Weight | Question |
|---|---:|---|
| Required qualifications | 35 | How many are Direct? |
| Core responsibilities | 25 | Has Dennis performed the actual function? |
| Level and ownership | 15 | Do title, decisions and leadership match? |
| Recency and depth | 10 | Is the strongest evidence current and substantial? |
| Domain/tool transfer | 10 | Are missing tools genuinely substitutable? |
| Practical constraints | 5 | Are location, language, authorization and travel workable? |

- **75--100 Core:** apply when no hard gate fails.
- **60--74 Adjacent:** selective; normally no more than one serious preferred gap.
- **Below 60 Stretch:** normally do not cold-apply.
- Any hard-gate failure overrides the number.

## 3. Document Quality Score — 0 to 100

| Dimension | Weight | Question |
|---|---:|---|
| Truth and provenance | 25 | Does every claim match canonical scope? |
| Information hierarchy | 20 | Are employer, title, dates and strongest evidence obvious? |
| Bullet evidence and impact | 20 | Are bullets specific and scoped without invention? |
| Relevance and terminology | 15 | Does it cover the JD naturally? |
| Skills evidence | 10 | Is every skill evidence-backed and interview-ready? |
| Mechanics/readability | 10 | Does it compile, parse and read cleanly? |

Truth/provenance below 8/10 is an automatic document failure.

## 4. Channel Strength — Separate Rating

| Rating | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Strong | Referral/internal sponsor plus targeted hiring-team contact |
| Moderate | Recruiter conversation, known hiring manager or warm introduction |
| Weak | Tailored cold application only |

Do not mix channel strength into either score. A polished cold application remains a weak channel.

## 5. Competitive Read

Describe the obvious-fit competitor and compare direct function, cloud/tool ecosystem, domain, level/scope, and access to the team. State Dennis's real advantage and the competitor's real advantage. Do not value a bridge as highly as direct evidence.

## 6. Reader Sequence

Use verdicts, not invented probability percentages:

1. **Parser/ATS:** extraction and relevant terms.
2. **Recruiter glance:** Forward / Borderline / Reject, with one reason.
3. **Hiring manager:** Interview / Maybe / No, focused on functional evidence.
4. **Technical reviewer:** credibility and likely first challenge.

## 7. Claim Audit

Audit every material summary, skills and high-value bullet claim:

| Claim | Canonical ID/evidence | Direct/Adjacent | Safe? | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|

Run `validate_resume_system.py --document` first. Any validator failure is Tier 1.

## 8. Cover Letter

If present, assess whether the letter was useful under the decision gate, adds information, uses current first-party hooks, and contains only canonical/resume claims. Consider whether deleting it would improve the application.

If absent, assess whether the resume stands alone. Do not penalize an optional missing letter.

## 9. Required Critique Output

1. Fit verdict and hard-gate failures.
2. Evidence Fit score with dimension table.
3. Document Quality score with dimension table.
4. Channel Strength rating.
5. Competitive read and reader sequence.
6. Claim audit.
7. Tier 1 truth/fit fixes and Tier 2 presentation improvements.
8. Cover-letter decision/critique.
9. Mechanical verification.

Never issue a single overall score or call a package submit-ready solely because Document Quality is high.
