Public policy and industry standards

What it looks like

Composite excerpts, written to be typical rather than copied. No particular message, company or person is quoted here.

What this position could do

Each of these is something this position actually controls, with the cost stated rather than implied.

1. Extend disclosure from the band to the level Cost: medium

   A disclosure rule that reaches the band leaves unstated the level the band attaches to, and the level decides where inside the band an offer lands. Requiring the posting to name the level being hired at, and the band for that level, closes the branch of the compensation bind that a band alone leaves open.

   What it costs: A band is a number on a page and a level is a claim about an internal grid, so each complaint needs records the regulator has to ask for separately. It also fixes at publication a level that is currently settled after the panel.

   Addresses B-013B-009M-004P-004P-001

   • I-002 Upfront Compensation Band Disclosure Already described as an intervention

2. Require postings to name where employment is possible Cost: medium

   Which employment relationships are possible in which jurisdiction is settled before anyone applies, and it is one of the few facts here that this actor defines rather than regulates at a distance. Requiring the posting to list the jurisdictions the role can actually be contracted in moves that fact to publication day instead of the screening call.

   What it costs: The rule binds a posting readable everywhere to contracts possible in a few places, and the body writing it reaches only its own territory — which one that is, this atlas does not state. The employer must publish an entity map it holds internally, and postings that read as open narrow visibly.

   Addresses M-014B-004B-013

3. Require postings to be dated and withdrawn on closure Cost: medium

   What a public posting is — an advertisement, or a statement that funded work exists — is a disclosure question, and that is the question this actor reaches. A rule that a posting carries its publication date and comes down when the search ends makes the difference between an open search and a talent pool observable from outside.

   What it costs: Two dates are cheap to check, but the fact that decides a breach — whether the search had ended — sits in records only the employer holds, so every complaint starts with disclosure. The rule also reaches sourcing that is legal and ordinary, which widens the perimeter it has to defend.

   Addresses M-006M-016B-013A-004P-002

   • I-001 Auto-Close Stale Job Requisitions Already described as an intervention

4. Require every automated rejection to name its rule Cost: high

   Where an application is ended by a threshold rather than by a reader, whether that decision must be explainable already sits inside this actor's bounds. Attaching the duty to the ending rather than to the message means a rule that closes an application — a missing term, an unmet threshold, an elapsed review window — produces a statement the applicant can check instead of nothing.

   What it costs: The duty is written for an employer and performed by a setting on a configuration screen the rule's author never sees, so the text has to fix responsibility somewhere between the party that buys the system and the party that ships it. Each stated reason is also a statement that can be disputed, and at the volume of ended applications that is a caseload before it is a remedy.

   Addresses B-002M-008M-020M-003A-009A-001

5. Require continuity-based ranking features to be documented and justified Cost: medium

   A feature that scores the length of a break sits inside the automated decision-making whose bounds this actor sets, and it is the input that closes the gap-penalty loop. Requiring any ranking input derived from employment continuity to be documented and justified makes its presence checkable, which a prohibition on its own does not.

   What it costs: The rule can only be checked where the feature is named in a model card or a settings screen, so it rests on a documentation duty that lands on a supplier rather than on the employer being regulated. Naming one input leaves its proxies — recency of the last role, density of transitions — outside the text until they are named too.

   Addresses M-011L-001B-002

   • I-004 Remove Career Gap Feature from Automated Ranking Models Already described as an intervention

6. Publish a common schema for posting terms and outcomes Cost: low

   The market copies conventions from itself faster than it absorbs rules, and this actor writes conventions as well as rules. A published schema — band, level, stages, jurisdictions, and a decline that names its stage and its criterion — gives the disclosure duties a shape that can be filled in once and read by machine.

   What it costs: A schema carries no obligation, so it is adopted where it is cheaper than what it replaces and nowhere else. The categories fixed in the first version become the ceiling on what is disclosed later, and the body that publishes it owns the revisions for as long as anyone uses it.

   Addresses A-002A-014M-010B-013

   • I-003 Standardized Late-Stage Rejection Feedback Taxonomy Already described as an intervention
   • I-002 Upfront Compensation Band Disclosure Already described as an intervention

Entries this position can see

• A-005 Compensation band reduced or altered mid-process
• B-013 Requisition Approval & Public Posting
• B-004 Recruiter Screening Call
• B-009 Compensation & Leveling Reconciliation
• B-011 Reference & Background Verification
• M-004 Unstated Compensation Band Discrepancy
• M-014 Location or Timezone Compliance Constraint
• M-020 Automated Application Expiration Timeout
• P-004 Compensation Double Bind
• I-002 Upfront Compensation Band Disclosure
• I-004 Remove Career Gap Feature from Automated Ranking Models