{
  "registry_version": "1.0.0",
  "data": {
    "title": "Hiring Manager Consensus Impasse",
    "status": "active",
    "evidence_ids": [
      "evidence.employment_interview_reliability_new_meta_analytic_estimates_by_structure_and_format"
    ],
    "content": "# Hiring Manager Consensus Impasse\n\nThe panel splits evenly, no one holds a tiebreaking vote, and the rule for the absence of consensus is no hire.\n\n### Structural Context\n- **Actor:** `hiring-manager`\n- **Nature:** `bias`\n- **Removability:** `none`\n\n### Causal Relations\n- Masks `mech.stronger_competing_candidate_in_final_cohort` — Stronger Competing Candidate in Final Cohort\n\n### Non-Inferences\n- A split panel reflects the absence of a calibrated internal bar, not a failure by the candidate.",
    "aliases": [
      "M-022"
    ],
    "id": "mech.hiring_manager_consensus_impasse",
    "type": "mechanism",
    "summary": "The panel splits evenly, no one holds a tiebreaking vote, and the rule for the absence of consensus is no hire.",
    "operates_at": [
      "bar.team_cross_functional_panel"
    ],
    "emissions": [
      {
        "artifact": "obs.conflicting_feedback_across_different_interviewers",
        "fidelity": "direct",
        "likelihood": "high",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.employment_interview_reliability_new_meta_analytic_estimates_by_structure_and_format"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "team"
        ]
      },
      {
        "artifact": "obs.generic_closer_alignment_rejection_template",
        "fidelity": "euphemism",
        "likelihood": "high",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.hidden_workers_untapped_talent_hbs_accenture"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "team"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "facets": {
      "actor": "hiring-manager",
      "nature": "bias",
      "visibility": "opaque",
      "removability": "none"
    },
    "amplifies": [],
    "masks": [
      "mech.stronger_competing_candidate_in_final_cohort"
    ],
    "evidence_level": "supported",
    "honest_baseline": false,
    "specimens": [
      {
        "kind": "note",
        "label": "Debrief tally",
        "lines": [
          {
            "text": "Interviewer A: hire. Interviewer B: hire. Interviewer C: no hire. Interviewer D: no hire.",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "text": "No tiebreaker present. Policy: absent consensus, default to no hire.",
            "tell": true
          },
          {
            "text": "Outcome recorded as: not aligned with team needs.",
            "tell": false
          }
        ],
        "reading": "A 2–2 split became a rejection by rule, and the rule was then written up as a judgement about the candidate."
      }
    ],
    "perspectives": [
      {
        "actor": "actor.hiring_manager",
        "sees": "A debrief that does not resolve: two for, two against, with no calibration record that would weigh one interviewer's bar against another's.",
        "reads": "Absent a reason to override, the split is the answer. A bad hire is visible for a year and has a name on it; a candidate not hired leaves nothing to be asked about.",
        "does": "Applies the default and records the outcome in the fit wording the debrief form accepts, which is what the rest of the process then sees."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.recruiter",
        "sees": "A debrief that closes without a recommendation, and an outcome field set to no hire with no single reason attached to it.",
        "reads": "The requisition is open again and the pipeline restarts. What the panel actually scored is not visible from here.",
        "does": "Sends the standard rejection, since there is no agreed reason to convey, and reopens sourcing against a bar written down no more clearly than before."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.candidate",
        "sees": "Feedback from one round naming architectural depth as a strength, another naming technical background as a gap, then a rejection citing fit.",
        "reads": "Two assessments of the same performance that cannot both hold. From here they read as an assessment of the candidate rather than of a room that did not agree.",
        "does": "Sets out to close a gap that half the panel did not record, and keeps both statements with their dates."
      }
    ],
    "non_inferences": [
      "A split panel reflects the absence of a calibrated internal bar, not a failure by the candidate."
    ],
    "agency_zones": {
      "hiring-manager": "medium",
      "recruiter": "low",
      "candidate": "low"
    }
  }
}