---
id: A-002
type: artifact
title: "Generic \"closer alignment\" rejection template"
lang: en
registry: 2026.08.2
canonical: https://hoba.work/artifacts/A-002
json: https://hoba.work/api/v1/artifacts/A-002.json
---

# Generic "closer alignment" rejection template

Standard automated email stating the team decided to proceed with candidates whose profiles more closely match role requirements.

> **On the canonical path** — [Declined, with a reason that can be acted on](https://hoba.work/process#WF-003-declined)
>
> Not every candidate is hired, and a decline is not a deviation. What makes it part of this path is that it arrives, it names the stage it happened at and the criterion that decided it, and it says whether applying again is worth anything.
>
> This entry is one of the ways that commitment stops being kept.

## At a glance

- Stage: Screening, Recruiter, Technical
- Evidence: supported

## What it looks like

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

**Rejection email** · day 9, sent at 03:14 local time — *reconstruction*

```
Subject: Update on your application

  Thank you for your interest in our company and for the time you invested in the process.
> After careful consideration we have decided to move forward with candidates whose profiles more closely align with the requirements of the role.
  We wish you the best in your search and encourage you to apply for future openings.
```

*What to notice* Nothing in the text is specific to this candidate, this conversation or this role. The message is a routing decision rendered as prose.

**Request for specifics, and the reply** — *reconstruction*

```
  day 9 Candidate  Thanks for letting me know. If it is possible, I would value one line on which requirement was the gap — it would genuinely help me aim better.
> day 11 Recruiter  Unfortunately we are not able to share individual feedback. It was a very competitive process.
```

*What to notice* The follow-up returns the same shape of answer. A template that survives a direct question is a policy, not an opinion about you.

## From each side

The same entry from inside each position that meets it: what reaches them, what it means from there, and what happens next given what they control.

### Candidate

- **What reaches them:** A message sent at 03:14 with no sentence specific to this candidate, this role or this conversation, and a follow-up that returns the same wording.
- **What it means from there:** The text is the standard wording for this outcome. Which requirement was the gap is not stated in it, and asking returned the template again.
- **What happens next:** Records the date and the exact wording, and compares the CV phrasing against the requirement phrases as published, since the message names no gap to work from.

### Recruiter

- **What reaches them:** A rejection step in the queue and, afterwards, a request for one line of specifics.
- **What it means from there:** The wording is the one approved for this outcome; what the panel scored beyond a recommendation is not in the recruiter's record either.
- **What happens next:** Sends the approved wording and answers within it, because anything more specific is quoted back afterwards as a stated reason.

### Employer policy

- **What reaches them:** One approved wording covering every rejection at every stage, and the disclosure rule that fixes what may be given as a reason.
- **What it means from there:** Identical wording across all outcomes is what makes each of them consistent and defensible if any one is challenged.
- **What happens next:** Sets the template once for the whole funnel; the hours a candidate spends inferring a reason from it are not a figure this layer holds.

## What this observation does NOT establish

- Does not establish which specific skill was deemed insufficient.
- Does not establish whether a human reviewer read the full resume.

## Diagnostic probes

- **PROBE-A-002-1** (low) — Compare CV keyword density with exact requirement phrases in the published job description. → Reveals potential vocabulary mismatch between candidate phrasing and ATS rubric.

---

hoba — a public, versioned atlas of hiring obstacles. Content CC BY-SA 4.0. This document is generated from the registry; the canonical page is linked above.