When a resume and interview answer differ, record both versions, identify the specific discrepancy, and ask the candidate to clarify. Do not silently pick the more favorable version or treat every difference as dishonesty.
Identify what actually conflicts
A broad resume label may summarize several assignments. An interview answer may discuss only one. First check whether the two statements describe the same period, responsibility, or outcome.
| Difference | Clarification to request |
|---|---|
| Employment dates | Exact months and whether an assignment overlapped |
| Job title | Formal title versus functional responsibilities |
| Project result | Team result versus individual contribution |
| Tool experience | Direct use versus exposure through colleagues |
Keep the original wording and source date accessible within the agency's approved record. A discrepancy log should resolve uncertainty, not accumulate untested accusations.
Work through a neutral example
Fictional resume: “Managed a team of eight.” Fictional screen: “I coordinated eight analysts during the reporting cycle.” Ask whether the candidate had direct reports, assigned work, conducted reviews, or coordinated a project team.
Suppose the answer confirms project coordination but no line management. The reviewed note becomes “Coordinated work across eight analysts during reporting; direct people management not established.” Do not retain “managed eight” in the client summary after learning the distinction.
Update every affected output
Correcting the source note does not automatically correct a draft email, presentation, or ATS field. Identify where the disputed claim was copied and assign a person to update those destinations. If the client already received it, provide a clear correction through the normal account process.
Keep the change narrow. A corrected title does not invalidate unrelated experience. Equally, do not let a well-written explanation turn an unresolved point into a verified fact.
Decide whether the question blocks sharing
Use the role requirements. An uncertain fact central to a must-have responsibility may need resolution before a recommendation. A peripheral detail may be documented as an open question, provided the client receives an accurate description of what is known.
The evidence-and-unknowns method helps keep that distinction clear. Recruit Recap's candidate submittal workflow centers on recruiter-reviewed write-ups. Use the review step to reconcile sources; do not assume a fluent AI summary has already resolved contradictions between documents and the conversation.