Worked example — match intelligence

Worth your evening, or not.

An hour of real tailoring is the scarce thing in a job search, and most of it is spent before you know whether the role deserved it. This is the answer Evident gives on one specific posting, before the hour is spent.

Associate Director, Market Access
A global pharmaceutical company, Basel — posted 4 days ago
Worth tailoring — spend the hour.

Both of this posting's stated must-haves — health-technology assessment submissions and the payer value narrative — are already in the history, evidenced by named work rather than by adjacency. The two things the role asks for that J. Doe has not done are real, and neither is a knockout: they sit in the job description's second paragraph, not in its requirements. What the hour buys here is not new material. It is stating eleven years of evidence work in the language a market-access reader scans for.

Inputs behind it: 4 of 6 family requirements met · both must-haves met · no eligibility knockout · fit score 66, rising to 74 after the rewrite pass.
A hard eligibility gate you do not clear — work authorisation, a licence, a stated minimumNot worth it
Must-haves that your history does not evidence, only sits nearNot worth it
Gaps that are the role's actual centre of gravity, not its second paragraphNot worth it

A verdict that is always “yes” is not a verdict. Most roles Evident scores come back not worth the evening, and saying so is the product working.

What the score is not. It is not a prediction that you will get the job, and no tool can honestly offer one. It is a read of one posting against one history, used to decide where an evening goes. A great CV is necessary, not sufficient.

Next: the CV this produced →