[Peroni]

Quick caveat before I get stuck into your post: I've been working in the hiring space for the past ten years with companies of all shapes and sizes. Your thought process throughout this post is absolutely on point but the big tl;dr here is that your proposed solution already exists in well established hiring platforms.

Feedback:

The primary difference between the process you describe and the process that most companies already follow is assigning points to influencing factors. In fact, some Applicant Tracking Systems like Greenhouse[1] already do exactly that.

check if the point values are reasonable - Who decides this? If it's a person who has met the candidate, they are immediately skewed by their own bias. If they had a positive experience with the candidate, they are going to struggle to see how negative scores could be considered reasonable.

Claim E: this process if well documented should be a valid and easy defense against allegations. - I'm afraid I have to argue the opposite here. In the EU for example, new GDPR regulations mean that this level of documentation must be made available to the candidate on request and categorically makes you more liable to legal challenges.

[1]http://www.greenhouse.io/

[2]https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

[Idontknowmyuser]

by check if the point values are reasonable

I meant that the amount of points is not a major outlier, and if it is the interviewer should have written an argument why it's different from the old cases if the other members find the argument convincing it should be fine.

>some Applicant Tracking Systems like Greenhouse

that's exaclty the type of feedback I wanted thank you very much

> Claim E

if we are innocent, why wouldn't this be in our favour.