Review AI-generated screening notes by checking consequential facts first: identity, speaker attribution, experience, compensation expectations, dates, and agreed actions. Then review the interpretation and wording. A grammatical edit alone will not catch a confidently stated factual error.
Review in an order that matches the risk
| Pass | What to inspect | Example failure |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | Correct person and conversation | Two similar names combined |
| Evidence | Statements match the source | Team achievement assigned to one person |
| Practical details | Currency, dates, locations | Annual figure written as monthly |
| Meaning | Conditions and uncertainty remain | Interest rewritten as acceptance |
| Presentation | Clear, relevant wording | Important open question buried |
This is an original review checklist, not a claim about measured error rates. Your agency can add checks for its own recurring mistakes.
Follow one claim back to the source
Fictional output: “Candidate manages five direct reports.” The source says, “I work with five analysts on reporting.” The correction is not just a softer adjective. It requires changing the claim and adding the unanswered management question.
When the transcript itself is uncertain, do not use the summary as proof. Seek clarification through the agency's normal process. A source reference makes a claim easier to inspect; it does not make an unclear statement reliable.
Track repeated errors as a template issue
If reviewers repeatedly remove unsupported conclusions from the same section, adjust the instructions or field definition. Ask for “candidate-stated responsibilities” rather than “leadership strengths” if the latter invites interpretation the source does not support.
Keep a small error log with the field, correction type, and reviewer action. Use fictional or approved examples in training. Do not move private candidate records into a public content library to demonstrate the problem.
Define what reviewed means
Agree who signs off, what evidence is checked, and where unresolved issues are recorded. “Reviewed” should not simply mean that someone opened the document. The process should also identify whether downstream versions need correction.
Use facts, inferences, and unknowns as the editorial structure. Recruit Recap's candidate submittal page describes recruiter review as part of the workflow. Start with a known fictional conversation in a demo, inspect the resulting custom write-up, and evaluate how easy it is for your team to catch and correct a consequential mistake before sharing.