- What reaches them
- An offer placed on hold and a named field in dispute: dates on one role, a degree the registrar has not confirmed, a prior engagement flagged as a conflict.
- What it means from there
- A third-party record and their own record disagree. Which one is wrong is answerable, and the document that answers it is either in hand or obtainable.
- What happens next
- Produces the payslip, contract or transcript covering the disputed months, and from here on states dates as the payroll record holds them rather than as remembered.
Reference Check Discrepancy or Regulatory Ineligibility
Third-party check reveals unverified employment dates, unconfirmed degrees, or direct conflict of interest.
Mechanism M-021 Candidate action Honest baseline Actor: candidateNature: ruleVisibility: observableAgency zone: candidateEvidence: established
On the canonical path
Checks that are proportionate and answerable — Only the checks the role actually requires. Where a third-party record disagrees with what the candidate said, the discrepancy is put to the candidate before it decides anything.
This entry is one of the ways that commitment stops being kept.
What it looks like
Composite excerpts, written to be typical rather than copied. No particular message, company or person is quoted here.
The background provider returned a mismatch on employment dates for one role: our vendor has March 2019 – June 2021, your application states January 2019 – August 2021.
We are required to pause the offer while this is reconciled. If you have a payslip or contract covering those months, that resolves it.
What to notice: A resolvable discrepancy in a third-party record, with a named document that closes it. This is one of the few mechanisms with a direct, evidenced remedy.
Barriers where this mechanism operates
Observations this mechanism emits
What this does NOT establish
- Administrative mismatch in dates is distinct from fraudulent resume misrepresentation.
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.
- What reaches them
- A vendor result marked for review, naming the field and the two values. The underlying records sit with the provider, not in the ATS.
- What it means from there
- The start date is at risk until the file closes, and the result does not say which side of the mismatch is the error.
- What happens next
- Pauses onboarding, asks the candidate for the document that reconciles the field, and keeps the wording to what the check returned.
- What reaches them
- The check result against the standard this layer wrote: which findings a document can reconcile, and which end the process regardless of explanation.
- What it means from there
- One rule applied the same way to every hire is the defensible position. An exception made once is a precedent that has to be defended later.
- What happens next
- Holds the offer until the file closes, and fixes how much of the reason may be stated — which is what determines whether the candidate is told the field or told nothing.
ATS vendorNot visible from here
From this position the entry is not visible. That is not a gap in the atlas — it is the finding: the decision is made where nobody in this position can see it.
Hiring managerNot visible from here
From this position the entry is not visible. That is not a gap in the atlas — it is the finding: the decision is made where nobody in this position can see it.
Public policy and industry standardsNot visible from here
From this position the entry is not visible. That is not a gap in the atlas — it is the finding: the decision is made where nobody in this position can see it.
