Your problem, not your industry.

The problem

The req will not fill and I cannot tell you whether it is the money.

You are guessing between the rate, the market and your own posting, and nothing in front of you can settle which of the three it is.

• The published wage percentiles for that occupation in your metro, printed with the source table, the vintage and the denominator sitting beside the number instead of in a footnote
• Your own posted maximum marked against that band, on the same screen where you write the posting, so you can see where your offer actually lands before you publish it
• How many active postings compete for the same occupation across the index, with county and metro figures labelled as floors because most postings never state a county
• An honest empty state where BLS does not publish the cell, which asks you to enter your own range rather than handing you an imputed one

The problem

I already know what to pay. I need finance to approve it.

Diagnosis was never the bottleneck. The number is only worth what it survives when somebody in the room asks where it came from.

• Source, as-of date and denominator on every figure, because a number you cannot trace is a number that loses the argument
• A decompose link on the wage, posting, apprenticeship, certification and supply panels, which returns the inputs the number was computed from rather than a paragraph explaining it
• Floors labelled as floors, and cohorts too small to report suppressed rather than rounded into something that reads more confident than it is
• No blended index and no modelled composite anywhere in the chain, so there is nothing in the figure you would have to defend on our behalf

Not built yetThe one-page, dated, sourced document you hand across the table is the thing founding partners are shaping with us. Today the evidence lives on screen, not in an export.

The problem

The role is credential-gated and I cannot substitute my way out of it.

A certification is not a preference. Putting somebody in that seat without it is a citation, not a compromise.

• Required certifications stated on the posting itself and carried with it, rather than buried in a paragraph a candidate skims
• What share of competing postings in that occupation state a certification requirement at all, with the number that stated anything printed as the denominator
• Your own hand-raisers filterable by the certification they list, each one shown as a ledger of facts you can open, never as a score

Not built yetThe credentialing path itself, which program, how long and what it costs, is not built. Neither is lateral substitution from an adjacent occupation, and for a licensed role we would refuse to offer it anyway.

The problem

My pipeline is four spreadsheets, an inbox and somebody's memory.

Every open seat is tracked somewhere different, so nobody can answer the only operational question that matters: what is waiting on us right now.

• Post a role in the console and it becomes a real posting, with the wage band checked against your metro before you publish it
• Draft the description from the facts already on the form, with the button refusing to run until there is enough real signal to write from, so it never invents a duty you did not name
• One board, four stages you move yourself: shared, interview requested, hired, passed, with anyone sitting unacted on your side flagged in amber
• Save the filtered view you keep coming back to, and export the list you are working from with the columns fixed server-side
• One inbox for the conversations, shared with the rest of the platform rather than bolted on beside it

The problem

The people who actually do the hiring will never log into another system.

A console only helps whoever opens it, and your site leads and hiring managers are not going to be that person.

• A Monday email with what moved on your postings in the last week, computed by the same function that draws the dashboard strip, so the email and the screen can never disagree
• A nudge when somebody has been sitting unacted on your side past the idle threshold, matching the amber flag on the board, with a cooldown so a stalled pipeline never becomes a stream of email
• Aggregate counts only. No candidate name ever leaves in one of those emails, and a guardian-pending row surfaces as a count of consents cleared and nothing more
• A quiet week sends nothing at all, which is why the one you do get is worth opening
• Invite your hiring team into your own workspace, scoped to your organisation on the server rather than by a setting somebody can change

Not built yetA separate forwardable digest for managers who are not on the account is not built.

The problem

Legal wants to know what the algorithm does to applicants.

Every hiring tool now arrives with a bias-audit question attached, and most vendors answer it with a policy document rather than with the software.

• Nothing here scores, rates, ranks or orders a human being. No fit percentage, no ranked list, no hidden sort. Not yet, and not later
• Candidates appear only because they applied to one of your postings, saved one, or are already on your shortlist. There is no searchable database of people and no stranger is ever pushed in front of you
• The order is the date of the candidate's own most recent action, which is a fact about what they did rather than a judgement about who they are
• Enforced in the build and not in a promise: a release check fails if a scalar about a person reappears anywhere in the tree
• When an applicant is under 18, contact details do not cross to you until guardian consent is recorded, and those rows are held out of every bulk change and every export