Talent SummonerCandidate Shortlist Template With Evidence
Copyable candidate shortlist template for comparing people against a frozen brief, tracing sources, recording unknowns and handing over the next action.
A candidate shortlist is a handoff document, not a verdict. It should let a hiring manager compare each person with the approved brief, open the source behind each statement and see what still needs checking. Keep it concise enough to review side by side, while preserving context for a later decision audit.
Freeze the brief first
Record the role, brief version, review date and decision owner before comparing names. Separate must-haves, nice-to-haves and genuine boundaries such as working pattern. For every criterion, state what evidence counts and what question would resolve a material gap. Do not add a requirement because one candidate looks interesting. If the brief changes, create a new version and keep the old comparison.
Use the same fields and evidence standard for every candidate. An adjacent background may be worth a conversation when the brief allows it; label that route instead of treating it as a direct match. Rank order can focus attention, but it cannot replace comparison or predict job performance.
Copyable evidence shortlist
Copy this compact Markdown record once per candidate. Keep the source wording short, link or identify the source, and add one next action that another reviewer can carry out.
## Candidate: [name or internal ID]
- Brief version / review date / reviewer: [v/date] / [date] / [name]
- Source trace: [CV, referral, public profile or other permitted source] [URL or internal ID] [captured date]
| Criterion | Type | Status | Source trace | Interpretation | Confidence | Unknown or check |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [requirement] | [must-have/nice-to-have/boundary] | [supported/adjacent/unknown/contradicted] | [source and date] | [job-related reading] | [high/medium/low] | [gap and question, or none] |
- Excluded data or proxies: [sensitive/protected data and irrelevant proxy removed]
- Duplicate, consent and retention: [duplicate check/date; contact basis or opt-out; access; review or deletion date]
- Reviewer handoff: [what the next reviewer should inspect or challenge]
- Next action / owner / due date: [progress, verify, hold, revise or close] / [name] / [date]
- Decision audit: [brief version, evidence change, reason for action and approval/date]Keep evidence separate from interpretation
Evidence is the observable source: a CV sentence, candidate answer or permitted public professional profile detail. Copy the relevant passage or describe the source precisely, then record its URL or internal identifier and capture date. Do not improve a vague statement. A title, keyword or employer name does not establish scope, ownership, outcome or current ability.
Interpretation explains how that source relates to one criterion. Use supported when the source directly addresses the requirement, adjacent when a transferable route needs checking, unknown when the material does not answer it, and contradicted when reliable material conflicts. Confidence describes your reading of the source, not the person's likely performance. High, medium and low are review cues, not percentages or validated scores.
Unknown is not a negative finding. Write the missing fact and a consistent verification question, then give comparable candidates the same opportunity. A contradiction deserves both source details and a human check; do not convert it into automatic rejection.
Prepare the reviewer handoff
Compare candidates against the frozen brief, criterion by criterion. Put decision-relevant evidence first, keep preferences from compensating for an unproven must-have, and explain the proposed action. A useful handoff says what to inspect, who owns it and when it is due. The action may be progress, verify, hold, revise or close, but close needs a job-related reason.
Keep an audit trail: brief version, source dates, reviewer changes, duplicate check, contact basis or consent record, access list and retention or deletion review date. These fields describe process, not a legal conclusion. This is general process guidance, not legal advice. Follow your organisation's privacy policy and current guidance; obtain qualified advice for a specific situation. Store only information needed for the decision.
Exclude protected or sensitive characteristics and irrelevant proxies. Do not infer age, health, family status, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, nationality or other protected information. Do not substitute school prestige, postcode, accent, employer brand, social activity or vague culture fit for a job-related criterion. Record any genuine boundary separately from capability evidence.
Fictional example
The following short example is explicitly fictional. Its labels demonstrate a workflow only; they are not validated scores, benchmarks or claims about a real person.
Candidate: Fictional Rowan K. | Brief: v3, reviewed 2026-08-19
Criterion: explain customer problems to a cross-functional team | must-have | supported
Source: fictional CV states weekly customer discovery sessions | captured 2026-08-18
Interpretation: relevant facilitation evidence; confidence medium because scope is brief.
Unknown/check: ask for one example of changing a product decision.
Next action: verify | owner: fictional hiring manager | decision audit: v3, source retained.Where Talent Summoner fits
Talent Summoner is our product. Candidate Ranking accepts up to 50 CVs in PDF, DOCX, MD or TXT format, requires no account, and creates a shareable report with plain-English reasoning and PDF download. Use it as comparison input; humans verify evidence and own outreach, interviews and decisions.
When you need more profiles, candidate sourcing starts from a brief and searches LinkedIn, GitHub and other public professional sources across 200M+ profiles. It ranks must-haves and nice-to-haves with plain-English reasoning. It is not an ATS or pipeline, does not auto reject candidates, and is not the decision-maker. See pricing for current options.
Wrong fit for this template
Do not use this template as an automatic rejection rule, legal assessment, full interview scorecard or database of sensitive details. It is a poor fit when the brief is unapproved, criteria are mostly preferences, or nobody can verify unknowns and own the decision. Fix that gap before adding fields.
FAQ
Is unknown the same as a weak candidate?
No. Unknown means the available source does not answer a criterion. Record a focused question and give comparable candidates a consistent chance to provide relevant evidence.
How much source text should a shortlist include?
Enough to trace the interpretation, usually one relevant passage plus its source and date. Avoid copying an entire CV or collecting unrelated personal information.
Should I use a numerical confidence score?
No. Use plain labels such as high, medium or low for confidence in the interpretation, alongside supported, adjacent, unknown or contradicted status. These labels are review prompts, not claims of precision or job performance.
Does Talent Summoner make the hiring decision?
No. Our product organises ranking and sourcing. The hiring team checks sources, verifies unknowns, owns outreach and interviews, and makes every decision.
Start with one approved brief, copy one record per candidate and send the handoff to a named reviewer. After the review, preserve the evidence, action and brief version that informed the decision.
Related: AI Interview Notetaking Software: What Buyers Should Compare · Candidate Interview Scorecard Template
Talent Summoner product facts read from our live candidate sourcing, candidate ranking and pricing pages, verified 19 August 2026. We re-verify this page quarterly — tell us if something changed.
