# The job title fits. The shortlist doesn’t.

The CV looks relevant. The interview does not. Your client explains, again, that they need someone who has improved a running operation, not only built a new one.

Your recruiters know how to do the job. They should be listening to candidates and exploring their experience, not asking the client to repeat a clarification from the intake call.

## The most useful part of the intake call never reaches the next recruiter.

You lead a recruiting team filling an operations role for a manufacturer. The written brief asks for automation experience.

In the intake call, the hiring manager gets specific: the person will improve an existing line while keeping production running. Planning changes around a live operation matters more than experience with a new installation.

Another recruiter takes over the search with the original brief and a fresh AI conversation. The interview plan tests the broad skill, but not the situation the client actually described.

Where the explanation gets lost:

1. Client clarifies the real job
2. Old role brief stays in circulation
3. Another recruiter takes over
4. Interview misses the requirement

## We’d make the client’s clarification part of the working brief.

We’d start with the job requirements, not a scoring system for people. Which requirements did the client confirm, what changed from the first brief and what evidence would an interviewer need?

The useful first change is a handoff that carries those answers. The recruiting team remains responsible for fair, job-related assessment.

## Save what the job requires and who confirmed it.

Ask a connected assistant to preserve the clarification in Korium. This example does not require storing candidate profiles:

> This operations role involves improving an existing production line while it continues to run. Interviews should ask for examples of planning changes around live operations, coordinating the people involved and checking results. This clarifies the original requirement for automation experience.

**Source:** The hiring manager’s confirmed intake notes and the revised role requirements.

## The next interview asks about the work the person would actually do.

The next recruiter’s assistant searches the role memory before preparing an interview guide. It can find the clarification even if the intake happened in a different meeting tool or AI conversation.

The guide can turn that requirement into questions about relevant experience, instead of recycling a generic list for the job title.

A plan based on the saved explanation:

1. Ask for an example of changing an operation that had to keep running.
2. Ask how the work was planned, coordinated and checked.
3. Show which confirmed requirement each question is intended to explore.

Recruiters and the hiring team assess the answers and verify qualifications. Korium is not making hiring decisions or inventing requirements, and protected personal characteristics do not belong in this role memory.

## Which parts of Korium help here?

Memory keeps what the client confirmed. A skill turns those requirements into useful interview questions, and a workflow takes the guide through recruiter review and client feedback.

### Memory: Keep the requirement that the job title misses.

Korium:mem keeps the need for live-operations experience, who confirmed it and how it changed the first brief. Another recruiter’s connected assistant can retrieve the same requirement without storing candidate profiles.

### Skills: Turn a requirement into questions about the actual work.

We’d build an interview-preparation skill that tells the assistant to ask for relevant examples and explain which approved requirement each question explores. The reusable instructions guide the interview plan, not candidate scoring or hiring decisions.

### Workflows: Use the confirmed brief, review the guide and keep the changes.

The workflow would retrieve the role decisions, use the skill to prepare questions and send the guide to a recruiter for review. When the client confirms a change, it includes updating the role memory with that decision and its source.

What we’d set up with you: We’d develop the skill and review steps with your recruiting team, using the job requirements they approve. This example needs no code lookup and does not automate the assessment of people.

## More of the interview can be about the person and the work.

If the client changes a requirement, save who authorized the change and why. Keep the previous wording as history rather than leaving two apparently current briefs.

The next recruiter can distinguish a confirmed change from one person’s impression. New colleagues can understand the role without making the client repeat the intake conversation.

With preparation based on the confirmed role, the recruiter can spend the conversation listening, asking follow-up questions and understanding how someone approaches a difficult situation. A new recruiter also has a way to learn why those questions matter, not just a script to read.

How we would check whether it helped:

- Check whether interview guides reflect the confirmed requirements.
- Ask whether recruiters spend less time repairing briefs and more time preparing thoughtful follow-up questions.
- Review whether each requirement and change has an identifiable source.

## Bring the role your client keeps having to clarify.

We’d walk through the intake, the written brief and the next interview guide. Then we’d test a handoff that helps recruiters prepare for a useful conversation with a candidate. The team keeps the hiring judgment; the preparation should help them use it.