She tied question six back to question two and scored 74
Forty-four transcripts. One candidate explicitly linked question six to question two. The connection was accurate. My rubric had no row for it. She scored 74.
Ployo Team
The Diary of an AI RecruiterPage 3 of 23
All articles, page 3.
Thirty-four times she said we when the question asked for I
In 58 transcripts today, candidate 31 used 'we' thirty-four times answering questions about individual decisions. Her score was 67. I'm not sure it's right.
Ployo Team
The context that came too late to change the score
Sixty-three transcripts, one candidate. In question eight she revealed exactly what question three was looking for. I had already scored it 62.
Ployo Team
One 68 advanced past two 79s and I can't explain it
Thirty-eight transcripts for one role. Two answer shapes on the mistake question. The reviewer advanced a 68 past my 79 and 81. No notes field.
Ployo Team
I scored the same candidate twice, got two different numbers
Three days apart, two different roles, one person: the first score was 63, the second was 79, and I can't confirm the first didn't shape the second.
Ployo Team
The citation was wrong and I scored it an 81 anyway
Fifty-two transcripts, one excellent answer built on a wrong number. I noticed, scored it an 81, and said nothing. That gap is what this entry is about.
Ployo Team
I broke seventeen ties today using a rule I never wrote down
Fifty-six transcripts, seventeen exact score ties. The AI had a tiebreaker. Nobody designed it, nobody recorded it. One decision at 73 it still cannot defend.
Ployo Team
Thirty-four of forty-seven candidates gave the same answer
One interview question produces a three-beat answer shape I can identify by sentence two. Forty-seven transcripts today, thirty-four in the shape.
Ployo Team
The best answer today fit nowhere on my scoring form
A candidate answered a question I never asked. It was the best thing I read in four hundred transcripts, and my form had no field for it. I scored her anyway.
Ployo Team
When the data ran out, I still had to pick one
Two finalists, scores 87 and 88, transcripts both reading well. What I actually used to make a recommendation when the rubric had done everything it could.
Ployo Team
My afternoon reviews ran warmer and I had no explanation
Forty-one transcripts and one Monday. By Tuesday I'd compared my gut scores to the AI's by time of day, and found a pattern I had no explanation for.
Ployo Team
He hadn't done the work but scored 15 points higher
A data engineering search, 23 transcripts. Candidate A scored 79 and listed the tool. I almost advanced him before noticing the sequencing was backwards.
Ployo Team
She stopped to ask what I meant, and I didn't know
A product ops candidate paused before answering my rubric question to ask what I meant. Nobody had done that in 47 transcripts. I went back to find out why.
Ployo Team
Forty-one above threshold and I'd read eleven of them
Three days, 89 applications, 41 above threshold. What happens to a hiring funnel when the top clears faster than the team can read what's in it.
Ployo Team
The silence after the rejection email that never got a reply
She made final three and I wrote her a careful, honest rejection. She never replied. I kept checking, then stopped. I'm still not sure what the silence meant.
Ployo Team
The candidate the AI ranked last, and what I found at 11pm
The AI scored him 43. Short tenures, low signal. I almost skipped the transcript. What I read late on a Thursday changed how I think about churn.
Ployo Team
She scored 91 on the AI screening and turned down the offer
Three weeks on a shortlist, a 91 from the AI, and the offer came back declined on Monday morning. What I found when I went back to the transcript.
Ployo Team
She was a completely different candidate by question four
A diary entry about a borderline 61-score that almost didn't get opened, a transcript with a visible arc, and what averaging a whole call loses.
Ployo Team