LESSON 5 OF 6 · INTERMEDIATE
Compare fit with evidence
Create a shared comparison of candidate priorities, current conditions, proposed conditions, evidence and remaining questions. Distinguish known facts from assumptions about the current company. Invite relevant operations or leadership colleagues to answer their own areas. Do not ask a candidate to rely on a recruiter’s assurance for a material term the recruiter cannot approve.
Build a three-priority fit table and specify the evidence required before a decision.
About 2 minutes reading + 12 minutes practice. Take longer when needed.
Apply the method
Create a comparison with one row per candidate priority. Include the current arrangement only where the candidate has supplied reliable information, the proposed arrangement, its source, open questions and decision significance. Do not assign arbitrary numerical scores to make the proposed company win. For material issues, introduce the person who owns delivery or approval. Ask the candidate what evidence would be enough to make a decision. When a critical point remains unknown, define the next verification step and retain the uncertainty in the written summary. A comparison is a shared decision aid, not a disguised presentation of a predetermined answer.
A worked application
Fictional worked example: Lee prioritizes escalation access, product fit and coaching. Escalation access is supported by an operating policy and a meeting with its owner. Product fit requires review of the specific business mix; that row remains open. Coaching is available through a named schedule, but it is group rather than individual coaching. Lee decides the group format is acceptable but the product gap needs resolution before moving forward. The recruiter documents that condition instead of saying all requirements are met.
Common mistake to avoid
Do not use estimated future pay or an unapproved exception as if it were a signed agreement. Illustrations and commitments serve different purposes.
Work through the case
FICTIONAL SCENARIO
The candidate prioritizes scenario access. A live discussion with a named escalation owner is stronger evidence than a generic support slide. A written compensation agreement is stronger than an illustrative verbal estimate.
Make it practical
Build a three-priority fit table and specify the evidence required before a decision.
Compare your reasoning with a worked response
Evidence may include an approved policy, product guideline, compensation document or meeting with the accountable leader. Label unconfirmed points and pause if a critical need remains unresolved.
Takeaway
Use the method to explain your decision, identify what you still need to verify and choose an accountable next step.
Treat the response as a model for reasoning, not the only possible wording. Adapt it to the role, evidence and appropriate organizational guidance.