{
  "registry_version": "1.0.0",
  "data": {
    "title": "Unstated Compensation Band Discrepancy",
    "status": "active",
    "evidence_ids": [
      "evidence.salary_transparency_growth_slows_but_momentum_continues_indeed_hiring_lab",
      "evidence.publishing_the_band_before_the_interview_becomes_a_duty_in_the_eu_directive_2023_970_art_5"
    ],
    "content": "# Unstated Compensation Band Discrepancy\n\nCandidate market rate exceeds budgeted compensation for the requisition, but salary band was never published or clarified early.\n\n### Structural Context\n- **Actor:** `policy`\n- **Nature:** `rule`\n- **Removability:** `intermediary`\n\n### Causal Relations\n- Amplifies `mech.mid_process_role_requirement_redefinition` — Mid-Process Role Requirement Redefinition\n- Masks `mech.genuine_technical_skill_shortfall` — Genuine Technical Skill Shortfall\n\n### Non-Inferences\n- Rejection does not mean candidate is overpriced for the market, only mismatched with this specific employer budget.",
    "aliases": [
      "M-004"
    ],
    "id": "mech.unstated_compensation_band_discrepancy",
    "type": "mechanism",
    "summary": "Candidate market rate exceeds budgeted compensation for the requisition, but salary band was never published or clarified early.",
    "operates_at": [
      "bar.recruiter_screening_call",
      "bar.compensation_levelling_reconciliation"
    ],
    "emissions": [
      {
        "artifact": "obs.generic_closer_alignment_rejection_template",
        "fidelity": "euphemism",
        "likelihood": "high",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.salary_transparency_growth_slows_but_momentum_continues_indeed_hiring_lab"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "recruiter"
        ]
      },
      {
        "artifact": "obs.compensation_band_reduced_or_altered_mid_process",
        "fidelity": "direct",
        "likelihood": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.salary_transparency_growth_slows_but_momentum_continues_indeed_hiring_lab"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "compensation"
        ]
      },
      {
        "artifact": "obs.feedback_stating_candidate_is_overqualified_for_the_grade",
        "fidelity": "euphemism",
        "likelihood": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "evidence.too_good_to_hire_capability_and_inferences_about_commitment_in_labor_markets"
        ],
        "observed_at": [
          "recruiter"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "facets": {
      "actor": "policy",
      "nature": "rule",
      "visibility": "opaque",
      "removability": "intermediary"
    },
    "amplifies": [
      "mech.mid_process_role_requirement_redefinition"
    ],
    "masks": [
      "mech.genuine_technical_skill_shortfall"
    ],
    "evidence_level": "supported",
    "honest_baseline": false,
    "specimens": [
      {
        "kind": "chat",
        "label": "The number nobody published",
        "lines": [
          {
            "speaker": "Recruiter",
            "at": "week 4",
            "text": "Before the manager round — what were your expectations again?",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "speaker": "Candidate",
            "at": "week 4",
            "text": "85–95k, as I mentioned at the screen.",
            "tell": false
          },
          {
            "speaker": "Recruiter",
            "at": "week 4",
            "text": "Right. I should be straight with you: the approved budget for this req tops out at 74k. It was never in the posting.",
            "tell": true
          }
        ],
        "reading": "The mismatch existed on day one and surfaced in week four. Four rounds were spent on a gap that a published band would have shown immediately."
      }
    ],
    "perspectives": [
      {
        "actor": "actor.employer_policy",
        "sees": "The approved maximum for the requisition, the levelling grid it sits on, and the disclosure rules that apply to the posting.",
        "reads": "The band is a control on cost across every hire. Whether it is published is a separate question, answered by the rules of the jurisdiction.",
        "does": "Sets the ceiling and what may be stated, on a cycle measured in quarters. The hours one process spends above that ceiling appear nowhere in that cycle."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.recruiter",
        "sees": "The approved maximum in the requisition, and the candidate's stated expectation from the screen.",
        "reads": "A gap here decides the outcome whatever the panel returns.",
        "does": "Chooses when the number is stated, which is the point where this can still be closed early. Saying it early ends a pipeline on a metric that is measured, and saves rounds on one that is not."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.candidate",
        "sees": "A posting with no band, and a question about expectations asked before any number is offered.",
        "reads": "The figure given can be checked against nothing. The band, the level and the grid are all outside what the candidate is shown.",
        "does": "States a range and records when it was asked and what was said. Asking for the band at the screen is the one point where the gap can surface early."
      },
      {
        "actor": "actor.public_policy_and_industry_standards",
        "sees": "Whether the posting falls inside a jurisdiction where a band must be stated, and whether a stated band appears.",
        "reads": "A published band closes the branch a disclosure rule reaches. The level a candidate is assessed at, and the grid behind it, sit outside the text of the rule.",
        "does": "Writes to what is enforceable and measurable, which is the presence of a number in a posting rather than the reconciliation that happens later."
      }
    ],
    "non_inferences": [
      "Rejection does not mean candidate is overpriced for the market, only mismatched with this specific employer budget."
    ],
    "agency_zones": {
      "employer-policy": "high",
      "recruiter": "low",
      "candidate": "low",
      "public-policy": "low"
    }
  }
}