Every demo of Alert Hire reaches the same moment. The recruiter watches a candidate’s interview come back, reads the report, and then asks: so what does it actually decide? It is the right question, and we would rather answer it in writing than have anyone guess. Where that line sits is fixed in how the product is built. It is not a setting an agency can change.
What it decides
- The score. Each interview answer is marked against what the role needs, with a quote from the answer behind every mark. When the agency screens CVs too, each CV gets the same treatment against the role’s requirements. What the role needs is the recruiter’s call; the grader applies it.
- Whether a key check passed. Right to work, notice, salary and the rest are marked against the answer the recruiter said passes, by a rule rather than by the AI, and shown beside the score.
- The order of the list. Candidates are ranked by fit score, with anyone who failed a must-have at the bottom. It changes the order you read in, and nothing else.
- Who gets the interview, when there is a CV screen. If the CV meets the rule the recruiter set, the candidate gets the interview link. If not, they stay in the list, graded and visible, and the recruiter can invite them by hand. Without a CV screen, everyone the recruiter adds is invited.
- When an answer needs a follow-up. If an answer is vague or leaves out what the candidate did, it asks one short follow-up about that question. One per question, no more.
- How the summary is worded. A few sentences for the recruiter, after the key checks. The recruiter can read the full transcript underneath.
What it never decides
- Whether a candidate is rejected. Nobody is declined by a score. A recruiter declines a candidate, or does not.
- Whether a candidate moves stage. There is no automatic stage change today. Alert Hire does not write back to an ATS yet; when it does, it will be a switch you control, off by default, so your configuration is what makes the change.
- What a candidate is told about an outcome. The AI never says "you were unsuccessful" or "you are through". It asks the questions, thanks the candidate, and tells them a recruiter will be in touch.
- Anything about money. If salary expectation is one of your key checks it records the answer and marks it against your range. It does not negotiate, hint, or comment.
- Anything sensitive a candidate volunteers. Health, family, disability: it is kept with the answer for the recruiter to read, and not used in the score.
- Whether a candidate has to take part. They can choose “I’d rather not” on the interview page. The recruiter is told, and nothing more is sent.
Why the line is there
Four reasons, in the order we weigh them.
A score is only defensible if a person owns the decision. When a client, a candidate or a regulator asks why someone was not progressed, "the model said so" is not an answer. "A recruiter read the grade, read the reasoning, and decided" is. That answer is only available if the decision was actually the recruiter's.
The law is heading the same way. From 10 December 2026, Australian privacy policies have to describe automated decisions that significantly affect people, and distinguish decisions a program makes on its own from ones it assists. Keeping the AI on the assisting side of that line is simpler to describe and simpler to defend. More on that here.
Recruiters have to be able to overrule it. A tool you cannot disagree with is a tool you stop trusting the first time it is wrong. Every score in Alert Hire shows the quote behind it, and the recruiter shortlists or declines whoever they choose, whatever the score says.
AI fails confidently. Models are wrong in ways that read as right. So we put the AI where being wrong is cheap and reversible (a score you can read the reasoning for) and keep people where being wrong is expensive and hard to undo (an outcome told to a human being).
What it looks like on a Tuesday
You open Interviews. Sixty on the shortlist, forty-one finished overnight, ranked. The key checks sit beside each name, and the two who cannot work from Sydney are at the bottom. You read the top five reports, notice one of them mentioned wanting four days a week in an answer, call them first to talk it through, and put three forward.
The full list of what candidates are told is on the candidate data page. To see the line in practice, start a pilot.
Sources
- Australian Human Rights Commission with LexisNexis, AI and recruitment compliance checklist. Checked 10 September 2026.
- Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Australian Privacy Principles guidelines, Chapter 1: APP 1. Checked 10 September 2026.
- Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products. Checked 10 September 2026.
Every source here was opened and read on the date shown. If one has moved or changed, tell us at admin@alertai.com.au.