A shortlist comparison should use the same role criteria and level of evidence for each candidate. Make differences visible without inventing a single numerical score that hides missing information or unequal assessment depth.
Compare on the approved criteria
Fictional example for a customer implementation role:
| Criterion | Candidate A | Candidate B |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery responsibility | Owned customer launch schedules | Coordinated internal implementation tasks |
| Client interaction | Presented risks directly | Client exposure needs clarification |
| Practical alignment | Work arrangement confirmed | Work arrangement still under discussion |
| Next question | Scope-change authority | Depth of customer-facing ownership |
These are invented profiles for illustration, not a ranking or a recommendation.
Keep evidence depth comparable
If one candidate completed a detailed screen and another has only a resume review, label the difference. An empty cell may reflect the stage of the process rather than a lack of experience. Do not let documentation completeness masquerade as candidate quality.
Use the same core requirements from the current brief. If the client wants to consider an exception, name it explicitly. Comparing one candidate against a different standard can make the table look more decisive than the underlying evaluation.
Explain trade-offs in ordinary language
Write “more direct client exposure established in the screen” rather than “better communicator” unless the assessment supports the latter conclusion. Preserve the scope of the observation.
The table should help the client decide what to explore next. It does not need to settle the entire hiring decision. For many shortlists, the most useful output is a clear interview question for each candidate.
Review the presentation order
If candidates appear in a recommended order, make that choice deliberate and explain the criteria through the agency's normal process. Do not assume alphabetical order, document length, or the order an AI tool returned results is an evidence-based ranking.
Link each row to the appropriate reviewed write-up in the authorized destination. Confirm names, role references, and document versions before sharing the comparison.
Use the candidate evidence matrix to prepare individual records and the submittal template for fuller context. Recruit Recap can help create structured write-ups for recruiter review; this shortlist worksheet is an original editorial tool, not a claim that Recruit Recap ranks candidates or makes hiring decisions.