{
  "registry_version": "1.0.0",
  "data": {
    "title": "Mid-Process Role Requirement Redefinition",
    "status": "active",
    "evidence_ids": [
      "evidence.job_seekers_beware_of_ghost_jobs_clarify_capital_survey_of_hiring_managers"
    ],
    "content": "# Mid-Process Role Requirement Redefinition\n\nThe team changes the stack, the seniority level or the project scope while candidates are mid-process, and the assessments already taken no longer apply.\n\n### Structural Context\n- **Actor:** `hiring-manager`\n- **Nature:** `noise`\n- **Removability:** `none`\n\n### Causal Relations\n- Amplifies `mech.unstated_compensation_band_discrepancy` — Unstated Compensation Band Discrepancy\n- Amplifies `mech.inflated_requisition_requirements_vs_actual_team_needs` — Inflated Requisition Requirements vs Actual Team Needs\n- Masks `mech.genuine_technical_skill_shortfall` — Genuine Technical Skill Shortfall\n\n### Non-Inferences\n- The rejection was driven by a shift in the team's mandate, not by the candidate's interview answers.",
    "aliases": [
      "M-013"
    ],
    "id": "mech.mid_process_role_requirement_redefinition",
    "type": "mechanism",
    "summary": "The team changes the stack, the seniority level or the project scope while candidates are mid-process, and the assessments already taken no longer apply.",
    "operates_at": [
      "bar.hiring_manager_in_depth_review",
      "bar.team_cross_functional_panel",
      "bar.compensation_levelling_reconciliation"
    ],
    "emissions": [
      {
        "artifact": "obs.position_closed_after_final_interview_without_hire",
        "fidelity": "distortion",
        "likelihood": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.job_seekers_beware_of_ghost_jobs_clarify_capital_survey_of_hiring_managers"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "team"
        ]
      },
      {
        "artifact": "obs.materially_similar_role_reposted_shortly_after_rejection",
        "fidelity": "direct",
        "likelihood": "high",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.job_seekers_beware_of_ghost_jobs_clarify_capital_survey_of_hiring_managers"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "sourcing"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "facets": {
      "actor": "hiring-manager",
      "nature": "noise",
      "visibility": "inferable",
      "removability": "none"
    },
    "amplifies": [
      "mech.unstated_compensation_band_discrepancy",
      "mech.inflated_requisition_requirements_vs_actual_team_needs"
    ],
    "masks": [
      "mech.genuine_technical_skill_shortfall"
    ],
    "evidence_level": "supported",
    "honest_baseline": false,
    "specimens": [
      {
        "kind": "email",
        "label": "The role that changed underneath",
        "lines": [
          {
            "text": "Thank you for the four rounds — the panel notes were strong throughout.",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "text": "Since we opened this req the team has moved the service to Rust and folded the on-call leadership into the role. Weighted against the new profile we are looking for someone with production Rust and formal lead experience.",
            "tell": true
          },
          {
            "text": "I recognise you interviewed against the previous description. I am sorry about that.",
            "tell": false
          }
        ],
        "reading": "The assessments were not re-run; they were re-scored against a target that moved after they were taken."
      }
    ],
    "perspectives": [
      {
        "actor": "actor.hiring_manager",
        "sees": "The scope the role has to absorb has moved since the requisition was written, and the panel notes in front of them were taken against the earlier description.",
        "reads": "Strong notes against a target that no longer exists. Re-running four rounds costs the team weeks it is already short of.",
        "does": "Rewrites the requirements, re-scores the existing notes against them, and decides at which level, if any, the candidate is still a candidate."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.recruiter",
        "sees": "A requisition whose description changes while candidates are mid-loop, and a hiring manager asking for a profile that was not in the original brief.",
        "reads": "The pipeline built for the old brief no longer converts, and time-to-fill keeps counting from the date the requisition first opened.",
        "does": "Restates the role to everyone still in process, or closes them out with the standard wording and sources again against the new description."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.candidate",
        "sees": "Four rounds of positive signal, then a rejection describing a role different from the one applied to, and a materially similar posting on the board afterwards.",
        "reads": "The rounds were passed and the target moved, or the rounds were not passed and the changed description is the courteous version. Both readings fit the same email.",
        "does": "Records the original description, the dates, and the wording of the change, and decides whether to ask which requirement is the new one."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.employer_policy",
        "sees": "An amended requisition arriving for re-approval at a different level or band, with the original still counted as open.",
        "reads": "A level and band change on a requisition already approved, which is what the levelling grid exists to settle. Nothing in the amendment records the interview hours already spent against the old scope.",
        "does": "Approves or refuses the new level and band, and the process resumes or stops at the reconciliation step."
      }
    ],
    "non_inferences": [
      "The rejection was driven by a shift in the team's mandate, not by the candidate's interview answers."
    ],
    "agency_zones": {
      "hiring-manager": "medium",
      "recruiter": "low",
      "candidate": "low",
      "employer-policy": "low"
    }
  }
}