{
  "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01",
  "status": "active (log, not a capped cohort)",
  "started": "2026-07-27",
  "target_mix": {
    "core": 7,
    "adjacent": 2,
    "stretch": 1
  },
  "definitions": {
    "core": "Evidence Fit 75+ and no hard-gate failure",
    "adjacent": "Evidence Fit 60-74, no required Gap, normally at most one serious preferred gap",
    "stretch": "Evidence Fit below 60 or a defining responsibility is only Adjacent"
  },
  "policy_change_2026_09_05": "Slot caps (7 core / 2 adjacent / 1 stretch) DROPPED by user decision. target_mix is retained only as a record of the original design and is no longer read by cohort_tracker.py or enforced anywhere. This file continues as a durable application log. Channel is now the rationed variable: no application goes out cold when a named contact is published and reachable. See resume_builder/reference/application_strategy.md.",
  "generated_from": "job_scout/state/applications.json",
  "applications": [
    {
      "company": "NVIDIA",
      "role": "Senior DevOps Engineer, Zurich (JR2024256)",
      "application_date": "2026-09-05",
      "fit_class": "stretch",
      "evidence_fit": 64.0,
      "hard_gate": "fail",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "applied",
      "id": "app-9068f462d9b9",
      "label": "NVIDIA - Senior DevOps Engineer, Zürich (req JR2024256)",
      "next_action": "**Await response. Raise the working model at first contact** - it went in unresolved and a 5-day-onsite seat would be a late no. Note: `claims.json` has no shell-scripting entry, so **Bash is omitted** from Skills although the JD names it and ten years of Debian admin plus Ansible work plainly involve it - same shape as the Ansible/Linux gaps found 2026-08-27. Confirm with the user and record it. Groovy stays out regardless.",
      "current_summary": "SUBMITTED 2026-09-05.",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**SUBMITTED 2026-09-05.** Recorded in the application record (now 7 entries) and in the scout decision log. ⚠ **Hybrid vs 5-day onsite was never resolved before sending**, so the working model is now a **live screening topic**, not a pre-cleared one - the same pattern as RUAG's comp/PSP. Thun→Zürich is ~1h50 each way; a 5-day-onsite answer is the main disqualifier to watch for. Comp is *not* a risk (levels.fyi Greater Zürich IC3 median ≈ CHF 204k, IC4 ≈ CHF 379k). Channel **Weak - the 7th consecutive cold submit**, though this posting published no named contact, so cold was the only option available. Submission PDFs `Dennis_Thiessen_Resume.pdf` and `Dennis_Thiessen_Cover_Letter.pdf` exist and are MD5-verified against source; letter recompiled so its date reads 5 Sep 2026. ⚠ **The letter carries `\today` and the submission copies are copies, not build targets - if it is sent on a later day, recompile the letter and refresh both copies first** (`config.md` Output Rules). Submitted despite the hard-gate failures on an explicit user override, the same shape as RUAG AI Engineer C5I. Resume 2pp/13 bullets + 1pp cover letter (279 body words), both validators PASS 0 warnings, 0 boxes, visually inspected. Measured **Document Quality 82/100** at critique; **both Tier 1 findings were fixed 2026-09-05** - `Ubuntu` removed from the skills line (0 canonical; `PP-3` is Debian only, and the Debian→Ubuntu transfer argument belongs in an interview answer, not a skills line) and `security hardening` now marked *(personal server)* per the explicit `claims.json` instruction. Four honest ATS terms were added from existing evidence (configuration management, service reliability, container orchestration, observability), lifting JD term coverage **50%→61%**; no bullet was touched, so the budget stayed at 13 and cadence could not regress. **The critique is now STALE BY DESIGN - the document is better than 82 but that number was not re-measured, so never quote a post-edit estimate as a score.** The headline reorder was deliberately NOT applied: it is a positioning call for the user and `\\headline` sits in the FIXED header block. Cover-letter hook is first-party verified (NVIDIA's own live Zürich posting JR2022878); **a hook was DROPPED at verification** - the Phase 0 plan's \"Alps / Swiss AI Initiative with ETH Zürich and EPFL\" is **not** supported by the first-party NVIDIA newsroom release, which mentions neither EPFL nor any Swiss AI Initiative; that came from secondary coverage. The letter names **both** honest gaps out loud - on-prem networking, and that employer-side Linux/Ansible ended Dec 2022 with only a personal server carrying currency. **⚠ BLOCKING: the working model is still unresolved and no document fix changes that.** Session `output/NVIDIA_SrDevOps_Zurich/session_nvidia_sr_devops.md`; JD scraped live via Playwright and saved verbatim (posted ~2026-09-01, very fresh). Evidence Fit **64/100**, fit class **Stretch**, **hard gate FAIL on two counts**: (1) required line *\"Strong expertise in on-premises networking and compute infrastructure\"* is a **Gap** - networking is 0 canonical and is not substitutable from data-platform work; (2) **hybrid vs onsite is UNRESOLVED** and the JD is silent - Thun→Zürich is ~1h50 each way. Required tally **3 Direct / 3 Adjacent / 1 Gap**. Recorded as an override rather than a passing gate, the same shape as RUAG AI Engineer C5I. (At the time this also had no free cohort slot; **that constraint no longer exists** - caps dropped 2026-09-05.) **Correction to the same day's scout triage: it called two required lines Gaps; only Q5b networking is one. Q2 (10+ yrs DevOps) is Adjacent and defensible** - a continuous CI/CD/automation thread runs Generali 2015 → today across five employers; the honest weakness is that those roles were titled data/test/research engineer, not DevOps. **The finding that changes the calculus: comp.** levels.fyi Greater Zürich puts NVIDIA IC3 median ≈ CHF 204k and IC4 ≈ CHF 379k, the highest-paying SWE employer in the city - the first role in the log where comp is a reason to *accept* a long commute rather than decline. Caveat: self-reported and equity-heavy after an extraordinary NVDA run; treat base as the reliable part. Strongest match is **R3, CI/CD pipelines for R&D engineering teams** - literally his career shape (`FC-1` Jenkins at a Fraunhofer institute, `BS-6` Ansible/Jenkins for fab analytics teams, `SW-3` Kubernetes + GitLab today). Zürich is NVIDIA's HPC/AI infrastructure-software R&D hub - first-party verified from NVIDIA's own live Zürich posting JR2022878 (*\"building the next generation of scalable AI infrastructure ... distributed training, real-time inference, and communication efficiency across large systems\"*), which is the hook the letter uses. **The Alps / Swiss AI Initiative framing was checked and dropped** - see above. **Honest gaps that travel with it:** on-prem networking (0), HPC (0), bare metal/switches/QEMU-KVM (0), RHEL/CentOS (0 - Debian→Ubuntu transfers, Red Hat does not), and **Ansible + Linux-at-work both ended Dec 2022** with currency carried only by `PP-3`, a personal server whose canonical entry forbids using it as physical-infrastructure evidence. No metric is quotable anywhere.",
          "legacy_next_action": "**Await response. Raise the working model at first contact** - it went in unresolved and a 5-day-onsite seat would be a late no. Note: `claims.json` has no shell-scripting entry, so **Bash is omitted** from Skills although the JD names it and ten years of Debian admin plus Ansible work plainly involve it - same shape as the Ansible/Linux gaps found 2026-08-27. Confirm with the user and record it. Groovy stays out regardless."
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-09-05"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01"
    },
    {
      "company": "RUAG MRO Holding AG (Business Area C5I)",
      "role": "AI Engineer C5I (w/m/d), Thun",
      "application_date": "2026-08-27",
      "fit_class": "stretch",
      "evidence_fit": 74.0,
      "hard_gate": "fail",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "applied",
      "id": "app-ca0990d47bd0",
      "label": "RUAG C5I - AI Engineer C5I, Thun (application ID 18027)",
      "next_action": "Await response. Optional but still worthwhile: call **Marco Heinzen** about technical scope and level, and **Frank Haugwitz** about compensation and PSP/project eligibility. **NEW CONTACT 2026-09-07 — `Lars Kauz`, Head of ICT Infrastructure C5I, +41 79 293 93 82, lars.kauz@ruag.ch**, published on the System Engineer C5I posting. Channel is the rationed variable since the 09-05 cohort change, so a published, reachable name matters — **but he heads ICT Infrastructure, the function whose req was ruled out for VMware/VDI/Windows content, and that is NOT demonstrably the Kubernetes platform group Senior DevOps C5I sits in.** He is a warm entry into C5I, not a verified channel for rank 1; Haugwitz stays the recorded gate. Do not react to a single outcome with positioning changes (`application_strategy.md` §38/§74).",
      "current_summary": "SUBMITTED 2026-08-27",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**SUBMITTED 2026-08-27** via jobs.ruag.ch (portal only; email and post refused). Evidence Fit **74/100**, fit class **Stretch**, hard gate **FAIL** (R1 and R2, the two title-defining responsibilities, are Adjacent not Direct), Document Quality **93/100** after a full critique-and-fix round (85 pre-edit), truth and provenance 24/25, **0 Tier 1 findings at Round 2**, channel **Weak/cold**. Submitted: German CV **2 pages, 13 bullets** + German motivation letter **1 page, 295 words**; both validators PASS, 0 boxes, text-order and visual QA clean, submission PDFs MD5-verified before sending. **Cohort evidence-first-2026-01 is now 6/10 and the sole Stretch slot is CONSUMED (Core 3/7, Adjacent 2/2, Stretch 1/1)** - any further application must clear Core or Adjacent on its own merits. Positioning is his canonical title **Staff Data, Analytics & AI Engineer**, carried by `BS-1` production ML-inference integration, `BS-6` Linux/Ansible, `SW-3`/`SW-7`/`SW-2` current Kubernetes and data-product work, `PP-3` current self-hosted Linux and hardening, `SW-5` DevSecOps tied to C5I's stated operating model, and the canonical `BW-1` officer career. The letter **names the AI-platform gap in one sentence** and pivots to the operations/platform side. **Honest gaps that travel with it:** no AI/LLM platform built or operated, no compute/GPU cluster, no RAG/retrieval implementation, no formal LLM evaluation; ML/AI-framework depth is certification-context only. **Compensation, PSP/project eligibility and role level were NEVER resolved before sending, so all three are now live screening topics rather than pre-cleared ones.** ⚠ **Marco Heinzen's published direct line (+41 79 568 14 96) was never used** - this went in as a pure cold submit, the sixth consecutive one. **If rejected, that is NOT a signal to drop RUAG:** five other RUAG C5I reqs sit in the scout log, and **Senior DevOps Engineer C5I** is already shortlisted and is a **materially better fit than this one**, sitting on the lane where his evidence is Direct rather than Adjacent (still live and verified on the board 2026-09-04). The **Data Lakehouse / Senior Data Platform Engineer** req was a title-match prior that the JD does not support — it was reposted 2026-09-04 as **Senior Data Engineer (MSSQL)**, requires on-prem MSSQL / Talend / SAP S/4HANA (0 canonical each), and is **ruled out**. **Scout run 2026-09-07: the RUAG C5I backlog is now SETTLED — undecided RUAG rows went 69 → 3** (`ICT Architect`, `Software Engineer C5I`, `Cyber Security Consultant` remain open; `ICT Architect C5I` stays `paused`). Do not re-triage that board from scratch; read `decisions.json`, where every rule-out note states whether it came from a JD read or from the title/family pattern. Three JD reads that cycle all ruled out: **Test Manager C5I** (the closest call — it escapes the networking gap entirely and BW-1 scores, but required *\"fundierte Erfahrung als Test Engineer\"* rests on `VIZRT`, **ten months, ended 2018-05**, so it is thin and stale, plus a lane exit and a third C5I req while 18027 is pending), **System Engineer C5I** (VMware + Firewall + Netzwerk, all 0), and **ICT Solution Architect Business Applications** (required *\"mehrjährige Erfahrung als Solution Architect\"* — a title `feedback_swisscom_datamesh_ownership` forbids — and the duties are *\"unter Anleitung\"*, a supporting seat below authoring).",
          "legacy_next_action": "Await response. Optional but still worthwhile: call **Marco Heinzen** about technical scope and level, and **Frank Haugwitz** about compensation and PSP/project eligibility. **NEW CONTACT 2026-09-07 — `Lars Kauz`, Head of ICT Infrastructure C5I, +41 79 293 93 82, lars.kauz@ruag.ch**, published on the System Engineer C5I posting. Channel is the rationed variable since the 09-05 cohort change, so a published, reachable name matters — **but he heads ICT Infrastructure, the function whose req was ruled out for VMware/VDI/Windows content, and that is NOT demonstrably the Kubernetes platform group Senior DevOps C5I sits in.** He is a warm entry into C5I, not a verified channel for rank 1; Haugwitz stays the recorded gate. Do not react to a single outcome with positioning changes (`application_strategy.md` §38/§74)."
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-08-27"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01"
    },
    {
      "company": "Schweizer Armee - Kommando Cyber",
      "role": "DevOps Engineer III (Data Platform)",
      "application_date": "2026-08-27",
      "fit_class": "core",
      "evidence_fit": 79.0,
      "hard_gate": "pass",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "rejected_no_interview",
      "submitted": "2026-08-27",
      "rejection_date": "2026-09-10",
      "days_to_disposition": 14,
      "note": "Form-letter rejection from Besarta Mehmeti, no interview, 14 days to disposition - the fastest in the log after Google Business Home. The letter is boilerplate ('Profil und unsere Kriterien nicht in allen Punkten uebereinstimmen') and carries ZERO diagnostic content, so it is not a signal about the package and is no reason to re-audit it. Same disposition class as Microsoft ISE, Google Business Home and Aker BP: a cold-channel no-interview rejection does not implicate document quality on its own. WORTH WATCHING, NOT CONCLUDING: this row and the SBB row are identical on every recorded dimension - core, Evidence Fit 79, hard gate pass, Document Quality 92, channel weak - and they went opposite ways (SBB converted to an interview, this died in 14 days). That shows the fit score did not discriminate; it does NOT show what did. n=1 on each side. Do not react with positioning changes (application_strategy.md 38/74). Channel note: Marcel Matthey-Doret (+41 58 46 78409) was published and never called - the fourth published, reachable contact left unused after Heinzen (RUAG), Wienandts (SBB) and Marthinsen (Aker BP). Consistent with the 2026-09-05 channel policy, but NOT evidence for it: the single interview in this log came from a cold submit.",
      "id": "app-e7389ad9d46f",
      "label": "Schweizer Armee - Kommando Cyber (Kdo Cy), DevOps Engineer III (Data Platform), Zimmerwald (Ref JRQ$540-19848)",
      "next_action": "Closed; no pending application action. Read recorded history before reopening.",
      "current_summary": "CLOSED - REJECTED 2026-09-10",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**CLOSED - REJECTED 2026-09-10** (submitted 2026-08-27, **14 days to disposition**, no interview - the fastest in the log after Google Business Home). Form letter from **Besarta Mehmeti**; the text is boilerplate (*„Profil und unsere Kriterien nicht in allen Punkten übereinstimmen\"*) and carries **zero diagnostic content** - it is not a signal about the package and is **no reason to re-audit it**. Same disposition class as Microsoft ISE, Google Business Home and Aker BP: **a cold-channel no-interview rejection does not implicate document quality on its own.** ⚠ **WORTH WATCHING, NOT CONCLUDING:** this application and **SBB** are identical on every recorded dimension - Core, Evidence Fit **79**, hard gate PASS, Document Quality **92**, channel Weak - and they went opposite ways: SBB converted to an interview, this died in 14 days. **That shows the fit score did not discriminate; it does not show what did.** n=1 on each side - do not react with positioning changes (`application_strategy.md` §38/§74). **Channel:** Marcel Matthey-Doret's published line (+41 58 46 78409) was never called - the **fourth** published, reachable contact left unused after Heinzen (RUAG), Wienandts (SBB) and Marthinsen (Aker BP). Consistent with the 2026-09-05 channel policy but **not evidence for it**: the only interview in the log came from a *cold* submit whose resume was missing all three ATS literals. **Kdo Cy as an organisation is NOT closed** - 11 Kdo Cy roles were open on the portal at submission time and only this req is decided. Evidence Fit **79/Core**, hard gate **PASS**, Document Quality **92/100**, channel **Weak**. Submitted package: German 2-page CV with **15 bullets** and 1-page motivation letter with **300 body words**; validators PASS, 0 boxes, text order and visual QA clean. Canonical **BW-1** records the six-year Bundeswehr officer career and anchors the letter's military/public-service motivation. User explicitly accepted the critique's remaining BS-1 wording issue (*„ohne manuellen Eingriff“*) as good enough and submitted unchanged. Honest gaps remain physical datacenter work, GPGPU, ClickHouse and named Pull-GitOps practice. Cohort evidence-first-2026-01 is now **5/10, Core 3/7** *(pre-dates the 2026-09-05 cap drop; counts are a record, not a budget)*.",
          "legacy_next_action": "Done - rejection recorded in `application_cohort.json`, `decisions.json` and the session file. Optional and low-cost: a one-line feedback request to **Besarta Mehmeti**, which also builds a contact at an org with other open reqs."
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-08-27"
        },
        {
          "type": "rejected_no_interview",
          "date": "2026-09-10"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01"
    },
    {
      "company": "Citadel Securities",
      "role": "Platform Engineer, Research Platform Engineering (Zurich/NY/Miami)",
      "application_date": "2026-08-26",
      "fit_class": "adjacent",
      "evidence_fit": 71.0,
      "hard_gate": "pass",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "applied",
      "id": "app-ef2bec6fe379",
      "label": "Citadel Securities — Platform Engineer, Research Platform Engineering, Zürich (also NY/Miami)",
      "next_action": "**Await response** (submitted 2026-08-26). No document work pending. **Two questions travel with this application and must both be asked at first contact, before any interview effort:** (1) **is the application even against the Zürich seat?** — the apply form offered no Zürich, so it may sit against a US req, which is a hard NO on relocation; (2) **hybrid or 5-day onsite?** — unresolved at submission, and 5-day onsite is a likely NO-GO on the Bern constraint. Same shape as the NVIDIA working-model issue: it went out unresolved, so it is now a live screening topic rather than a pre-cleared one. Also unasked: the Zürich compensation figure — the posting's $175–350k is a US/NY pay-transparency disclosure.",
      "current_summary": "SUBMITTED 2026-08-26 — open, awaiting response.",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**SUBMITTED 2026-08-26 — open, awaiting response.** Recorded as `adjacent` in `application_cohort.json` (outcome `applied`) and as `applied` in `decisions.json`. *Slot language from the capped-cohort era has been removed here: the caps were dropped 2026-09-05 and counts are a record, not a budget.* ⚠️ **KEY FINDING — the application form's preferred-work-location selector offered NO Zurich**, despite the JD saying \"Miami, Zurich or New York\" and the site's own Zurich filter returning this req. Careers site is operated by **Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC**; the apply flow is likely US-entity, or the Zurich seat is closed while the posting stands. **This partly supersedes the working-model risk** — if no Zurich seat is reachable through that form, hybrid-vs-onsite is moot and the application may sit against a US req, a hard NO on relocation. **Rule for any future Citadel application: check the form's location selector BEFORE building a package** — the posting's stated locations and the site filter both proved unreliable. User applied with low expectation; cold channel, evergreen standing req. 2pp resume (13 bullets) + 1pp CL (270 words), both validator **PASS, 0 warnings**; JD term coverage 51%→68% after Tier 1 fixes. Critique **STALE by design** (86/100 pre-edit; user chose to submit as-is over re-critiquing; est. ~91 post-edit, never quote as a score). **CORRECTED 2026-09-10:** this row previously said *\"Cohort entry and decision-log entry deliberately NOT written — no confirmed send date\"* while its own status line read SUBMITTED. **Both entries exist and both are dated 2026-08-26** — the sentence was pre-submission text that survived the send. **The working-model question is still open and travels with the application:** Evidence Fit **71/100 (Adjacent, mid-band; revised down from 74)**, qualifications gate PASS but **a practical constraint is UNRESOLVED**, which `critique_framework.md` treats as a NO-GO trigger. **The JD is silent on hybrid vs onsite (0 grep matches), and Ken Griffin is on record that Citadel returned to the office 5 days a week and calls it his most important leadership decision.** If that holds for Zurich, it means ~2–2.5h daily commuting from Bern or relocating — breaking the Bern-based / 2–3 day hybrid bar. Only contrary evidence is a stale 2022 anonymous Fishbowl post about Operations. **Must be asked, not researched** — same class as the SBB K band. Practical constraints scored 5/5 in Phase 0 on an unexamined assumption; corrected to 2/5. **Zero Gaps among the 7 minimum quals**, and all five preferred technologies (Kafka, Kubernetes, Spark, Airflow, distributed DBs) are Direct — **the strongest raw stack alignment in the log**. Title-defining function **splits**: R2 (ingestion/transformation/storage/lifecycle of large datasets) is Direct and describes SW-1/SW-7 exactly; **R1 (design and build the research platform itself) is Adjacent** — the Aker BP authoring-vs-building shape again, and unwritable-around under Scope Discipline. **Classification caveat:** `application_strategy.md`'s \"a defining responsibility is only Adjacent → Stretch\" would strictly class this Stretch; recorded Adjacent per the Aker BP precedent (the caps this once turned on no longer exist). Gaps: platform authoring at firm scale, no professional quant/finance (now partly mitigated by new **PP-1/PP-2**), SDKs (0 evidence), low-latency/HFT (0 evidence — thesis throughput figure is explicitly barred by `thesis_limits`). **Go is NOT a gap** — Q3 is disjunctive and Python satisfies it. **$175–350k in the posting is a US/NY pay-transparency disclosure, NOT the Zurich number — must be asked.** Channel **Weak/cold** — it was the 5th consecutive cold application, in an office visibly staffed from Google and ETH (platform research head Costas Bekas; Nicolai Meinshausen leads principal research). Cover letter **was written and submitted** (1pp, 270 words); the PP-1 domain story carries it.",
          "legacy_next_action": "**Await response** (submitted 2026-08-26). No document work pending. **Two questions travel with this application and must both be asked at first contact, before any interview effort:** (1) **is the application even against the Zürich seat?** — the apply form offered no Zürich, so it may sit against a US req, which is a hard NO on relocation; (2) **hybrid or 5-day onsite?** — unresolved at submission, and 5-day onsite is a likely NO-GO on the Bern constraint. Same shape as the NVIDIA working-model issue: it went out unresolved, so it is now a live screening topic rather than a pre-cleared one. Also unasked: the Zürich compensation figure — the posting's $175–350k is a US/NY pay-transparency disclosure."
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-08-26"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01"
    },
    {
      "company": "SBB",
      "role": "Data Engineer (m/w/d), Asset Management Infrastrukturanlagen, Bern",
      "job_id": "103755",
      "application_date": "2026-08-25",
      "fit_class": "core",
      "evidence_fit": 79.0,
      "hard_gate": "pass",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "withdrawn_by_candidate",
      "submitted": "2026-08-25",
      "interview": {
        "stage": "Stage 2 of 4 - Virtuelles Kennenlernen mit HR und Fuehrungskraft",
        "invited": "2026-08-28",
        "scheduled": "2026-09-09 08:30",
        "duration_min": 45,
        "format": "Microsoft Teams",
        "held": "2026-09-09",
        "result": "Held 2026-09-09 (HR + Scrum Master). Candidate WITHDREW 2026-09-11 after SBB confirmed there was no room to move on the Einstufung.",
        "user_read": "User reported 'ein paar Red Flags' and judged that the Rahmenbedingungen do not compensate for them. The specific red flags were NOT captured while fresh - if this is reopened, ask before relying on memory. Leaning negative but explicitly undecided as of 2026-09-10; he asked to leave it open pending SBB's feedback."
      },
      "withdrawn": "2026-09-11",
      "why_withdrawn": "Total package was a net DOWNGRADE on four counts: 41h vs 40h week; 25 days holiday + Brueckentage vs 28 + 5 from Zeitautonomie; 3 office days vs 2; and the band ceiling above. Plus a qualitative red flag: he spoke only to HR and the Scrum Master and perceived DIFFICULTIES IN THE TEAM. That one is not fixable by a salary offer - note it if SBB or a similar Bern-tier seat comes back.",
      "lesson": "SBB-SPECIFIC targeting rule (user 2026-09-11): at SBB, Anforderungsniveau K is too low - aim at Niveau L and/or Kader. NARROWED the same day at the user's instruction: Anforderungsniveau is SBB's OWN system (https://company.sbb.ch/de/jobs-karriere/arbeitgeberin/lohn.html) and does NOT generalise - jobs.admin.ch uses Lohnklassen, RUAG its own scheme, PostFinance per-posting bands. ~145k is an SBB ceiling, not a tier anchor. THUN-AREA EMPLOYERS (RUAG, Kdo Cy) ARE EXPLICITLY OUT of this reasoning: near-zero commute plus benefits a band does not show - he named childcare-cost coverage at the Schweizer Armee/Kdo Cy as potentially far more generous (UNVERIFIED - ask). Never decline a Thun-area role on band alone. What DOES generalise: judge by headroom in the band, and price the total package (working time, holiday, office days), not the entry number.",
      "id": "app-799e2880a22e",
      "label": "SBB - Data Engineer (m/w/d), Asset Management Infrastrukturanlagen, Bern (Job ID 103755)",
      "next_action": "Closed. For future SBB roles assess Niveau L/Kader; do not generalize SBB bands to other employers.",
      "current_summary": "Withdrew after interview and confirmation that SBB could not improve the classification. Niveau K ceiling and total package unsuitable for this application.",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**CLOSED - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY THE CANDIDATE 2026-09-11.** Interview held 2026-09-09 (HR + Scrum Master, **not** the People Leader the brief expected); SBB confirmed there was no room on the Einstufung, and he withdrew. **This is the cohort's only interview and it ended as a NO from his side, not theirs.** 💰 **HARD COMP FIGURES - supersedes the earlier +10% estimate and is the reference point for the whole Bern/Thun tier:** **Anforderungsniveau K tops out at ~CHF 145k.** He sits at **~CHF 135k inside a Swisscom band that runs to ~CHF 160k**. The decisive argument was **headroom, not the absolute number** - he would have entered K at its ceiling merely to break even, with nothing above. ⚠ **The package was a net DOWNGRADE on four counts:** 41h vs 40h week · 25 days holiday + Brückentage vs 28 + 5 from Zeitautonomie · 3 office days vs 2 · the band ceiling. ⚠ **Qualitative red flag worth carrying forward:** he spoke only to HR and the Scrum Master and **perceived difficulties in the team** - that is not repairable by a salary offer. 🎯 **TARGETING RULE — SBB ONLY: Anforderungsniveau K is too low; at SBB aim at NIVEAU L and/or KADER.** ⚠ **Deliberately NOT generalised** (user, 2026-09-11): *Anforderungsniveau* is **SBB's own** salary system (published at <https://company.sbb.ch/de/jobs-karriere/arbeitgeberin/lohn.html>) and does not map onto other employers — **jobs.admin.ch/Schweizer Armee uses Lohnklassen**, RUAG has its own scheme, PostFinance publishes per-posting bands. ~145k is an **SBB** ceiling, not a tier anchor. ⚠ **Thun and surroundings (RUAG, Kdo Cy) are explicitly OUT of this reasoning:** near-zero commute plus benefits that a salary band does not show — he named **childcare-cost coverage at the Schweizer Armee/Kdo Cy as potentially far more generous** (unverified — ask, do not assume). **Never decline a Thun-area role on band alone before pricing the benefits.** What *does* carry across employers: judge by **headroom in the band**, and price the **total package** (working time, holiday, office days), not the entry salary. Original record: interview was stage 2 of 4, **INTERVIEW HELD 2026-09-09.** SBB asked him to come back on whether the role interests him; **SBB's own feedback is still outstanding.** User's summary: *„ok\"*, but **ein paar Red Flags**, and in his read the Rahmenbedingungen do not compensate for them - **leaning negative, explicitly undecided as of 2026-09-10, and he asked to leave it open.** ⚠ **The specific red flags were NOT captured while fresh** - anyone reopening this must ask rather than rely on memory. 💰 **First real read on Anforderungsniveau K:** his post-interview estimate is that roughly **+10% on the current ~140k** looks achievable (very roughly ~155k). **This is HIS ESTIMATE of what is negotiable, not a band SBB is recorded as quoting** - whether the K range was named on the call is unrecorded. Well below the 180k bar, above current pay. Recorded in `comp_worksheet_sbb.md` as the **first calibration point for the entire Bern/Thun local tier** (RUAG, Swissgrid, BKW, BFH), which was previously pure guesswork - treat as an estimate, never quote as a figure. **INTERVIEW INVITED 2026-08-28 - 9. September 2026, 08:30, 45 Min, MS Teams.** Per the posting's own process this is **stage 2 of 4**, *\"Virtuelles Kennenlernen mit HR und Fuehrungskraft\"* - **HR together with Andri Wienandts**, not a pure HR screen. Brief written to `output/SBB_DataEngineer_AssetMgmt/interview_brief_sbb_2026-09-09.md`. **This is the FIRST interview of the evidence-first cohort** (6 applications, 2 rejections, 1 conversion) and it converted from a **COLD submit** - the channel plan called for phoning Wienandts first and that never happened. **The resume never contained Snowflake, dbt or Power BI**, the three literals an ATS keyword screen would have keyed on; the session had recorded that risk as \"accepted, not solvable\". It did not filter him out, so a human read the dossier and the honest-substitution framing survived first contact. **One data point, do not over-read it** - but it is evidence against assuming honest omissions are fatal at the screen. Submitted 2026-08-25: 2pp English resume, 13 bullets, no cover letter (SBB waives it), Evidence Fit **79/100 Core**, hard gate **PASS**, Document Quality **92/100**, channel **Weak/cold**. Best practical fit in the log - Bern-based, German-language, no relocation, EU citizen + B permit. **Four things unresolved before submitting and now live call topics:** (1) **Anforderungsniveau K** is a capped GAV band, figures not public, very likely below the 180k bar; (2) the seat reads **lateral or below** current Staff + Component Owner scope, the same shape as the declined BKW, and the JD's only architecture language is a personal skill not an ownership mandate; (3) **RAMSI** Java/Spring Boot/Angular is a whole responsibility line on a stack that is historical or absent - ask its share, do not oversell; (4) Kidz Care scales on gross household income, so far below 90% at this band. Named gaps to answer honestly: Snowflake, dbt, Argo Workflows, Helm, Power BI, Spring Boot, Angular - all non-canonical, all survivable only because the JD prefixes the stack with \"z. B.\". Thesis stays a **methods prototype**: no real operational data, no accuracy figures, PSO surveyed only, throughput figure barred.",
          "legacy_next_action": "Done - withdrawn and recorded in `application_cohort.json`, `decisions.json`, `comp_worksheet_sbb.md` and memory. **Carry forward the headroom + total-package test, NOT the K→L mapping** — that one is SBB-specific and was explicitly narrowed by the user on 2026-09-11.",
          "legacy_open_risk": "Anforderungsniveau K is a capped GAV band, figures not public; seat may read lateral or below current Staff + Component Owner scope.",
          "legacy_note": "FIRST interview invitation in the evidence-first cohort. Converted from a COLD submit - the published warm contact (Andri Wienandts, +41 79 364 62 53) was never called. The resume never contained Snowflake, dbt or Power BI, the three literals an ATS keyword screen would have keyed on, so a human read the dossier.",
          "legacy_comp_datapoint": "HARD FIGURES, from the interview - supersedes the earlier +10% estimate. Anforderungsniveau K TOPS OUT AT ~CHF 145k. His own position: ~CHF 135k today inside a Swisscom band that runs to ~CHF 160k. So the decisive point was NOT the absolute number but the HEADROOM: he would have had to enter K at its ceiling just to break even, with nothing left above. First hard calibration of a Swiss public-sector band and the reference point for the whole Bern/Thun tier (RUAG, Swissgrid, BKW, BFH, PostFinance)."
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-08-25"
        },
        {
          "type": "interview_invited",
          "date": "2026-08-28"
        },
        {
          "type": "interview_held",
          "date": "2026-09-09"
        },
        {
          "type": "withdrawn_by_candidate",
          "date": "2026-09-11"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01"
    },
    {
      "company": "Aker BP ASA",
      "role": "Data Product Architect - AI-ready Data Products",
      "application_date": "2026-07-29",
      "fit_class": "adjacent",
      "evidence_fit": 79.0,
      "hard_gate": "pass",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "rejected_no_interview",
      "submitted": "2026-07-29",
      "rejection_date": "2026-08-27",
      "id": "app-80e038df976c",
      "label": "Aker BP ASA — Data Product Architect, AI-ready Data Products (FINN 469067315)",
      "next_action": "Closed; no pending application action. Read recorded history before reopening.",
      "current_summary": "CLOSED — REJECTED 2026-08-27",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**CLOSED — REJECTED 2026-08-27** (submitted 2026-07-30, ~28 days to disposition, no interview; the session file and cohort record record the submission as 2026-07-29 — a one-day inconsistency, never reconciled). Adjacent, **Evidence Fit 79/100**, Document Quality 93/100, hard gate PASS, **Channel Weak/cold** — the optional follow-up email to Per Olav Marthinsen was left unsent, so this went in as a pure cold submit. Stavanger/Oslo/Trondheim, English working language, no Norwegian and no clearance required, EEA work rights. 2pp resume + 1pp CL, both validator PASS, no Tier 1 truth findings — **a cold-channel no-interview rejection does not implicate document quality on its own** (same disposition class as Microsoft ISE and Google Business Home). Honest practitioner framing: builds governed data products *inside* Swisscom's Data Mesh; role *authored* an enterprise framework — real level stretch, never fabricated authorship. **Atlassian Compass closed the catalogue-tool gap** (74→79). Standing gaps if a similar req appears: framework authorship, no energy domain, AWS vs their Microsoft/Cognite stack, **zero verified metrics**. **Cohort slot stays consumed** (evidence-first-2026-01, Adjacent 1/2 — a rejection does not free a slot; cohort remains 4/10). **The Norway lane stays OPEN and selective** — NATO JWC Stavanger is still live, and Equinor/Telenor and other strong Norwegian employers remain in scope per the user's standing instruction. Never frame this lane as closed.",
          "legacy_next_action": "Done — cohort rejection recorded; do not react to this single outcome with positioning changes (`application_strategy.md` §38/§74)"
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-07-29"
        },
        {
          "type": "rejected_no_interview",
          "date": "2026-08-27"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01",
      "unresolved": [
        "Application date conflicts: cohort says 2026-07-29; CLAUDE says 2026-07-30. Preserve cohort date pending source confirmation."
      ],
      "fit_override_reason": "Legacy Adjacent classification retained; numeric score alone would suggest Core. Original rubric/override needs confirmation."
    },
    {
      "company": "Google",
      "role": "Software Engineer III, Business Home",
      "application_date": "2026-07-27",
      "fit_class": "core",
      "evidence_fit": 89.0,
      "hard_gate": "pass",
      "channel": "weak",
      "outcome": "rejected_no_interview",
      "id": "app-767097db424a",
      "label": "Google - Software Engineer III, Business Home, Zurich (req 93922217108087494)",
      "next_action": "Closed; no pending application action. Read recorded history before reopening.",
      "current_summary": "CLOSED - NOT PROCEEDING 2026-07-28",
      "events": [
        {
          "type": "legacy_status_import",
          "recorded_at": "2026-09-11",
          "source": "CLAUDE.md / application_cohort.json",
          "details": "**CLOSED - NOT PROCEEDING 2026-07-28** (submitted 2026-07-27; Core, Evidence Fit 89/100, Document Quality 94/100; no interview). Rapid early-screen disposition; known risks were Mid-level versus current Staff scope, data/platform versus product-SWE positioning, preferred algorithms/accessibility gaps, and a cold channel.",
          "legacy_next_action": "Done - cohort rejection recorded; do not treat this outcome alone as a document-quality failure"
        },
        {
          "type": "applied",
          "date": "2026-07-27"
        },
        {
          "type": "rejected_no_interview",
          "date": "2026-07-28"
        }
      ],
      "cohort_id": "evidence-first-2026-01"
    }
  ]
}