Hiring teams need to understand how a person’s experience relates to the work ahead. A résumé can start that conversation, but it may leave ownership, judgment, and results unexplained. Supporting materials and interviews give the team more to examine.
Criteria’s 2026–2027 Hiring Benchmark Report highlights concerns about candidate information and AI accuracy. Here’s how those findings relate to reviewing evidence and preparing interviews in TrueRole.
What the research tells us
Criteria surveyed 1,027 U.S. hiring professionals in summer 2026. On page 7, 55% reported difficulty finding high-quality candidates with the right skills, and 24% reported losing confidence in résumés as a reliable signal.
The accuracy of hiring tools matters, too. 42% cited accuracy as an obstacle to using AI in hiring, making it the most frequently selected obstacle on page 22. Data privacy followed at 33%. These are respondents’ concerns, rather than measurements of any tool’s accuracy or privacy practices.
On page 27, 41% selected increasing hiring efficiency among their top three priorities for the following year, compared with 23% selecting embracing AI. Our reading is that hiring software should demonstrate how it helps people do the work: examine relevant information, resolve questions, and coordinate review.
Give reviewers evidence they can inspect
For TrueRole, the practical response begins with the role. Agree on the responsibilities, seniority, and business context before reviewing candidates. Then examine each person’s materials against those requirements.
TrueRole starts with résumé analysis and supports deeper review of relevant portfolios, work samples, and other materials. Reviewers can inspect the evidence behind the evaluation and see where information is missing or a concern needs attention. Interview notes and team feedback can add context as hiring progresses.
An explanation makes analysis easier to examine; it does not guarantee that a conclusion is correct. Reviewers should check the underlying materials and challenge interpretations that go beyond what those materials establish.
A practical example: from a project claim to a focused interview
The following is a fictional example illustrating a review workflow, not a customer result or a measured product outcome.
Start with a specific requirement
A software company needs a product designer who can investigate onboarding problems, compare possible solutions, and work with engineers to deliver improvements. The team agrees that research and decision-making ownership matter for this role.
Examine the available materials
A résumé says the applicant led an onboarding redesign. A portfolio describes the project and shows the final screens, but it does not explain who planned the research or chose between competing designs.
The team has evidence of relevant project experience. Individual ownership remains an open question. Missing detail should prompt further examination; it does not by itself establish that the person lacks the capability or misrepresented their work.
In TrueRole, reviewers can examine the requirement findings and supporting sources, then use Interview Prep to develop questions around gaps and claims that need validation.
Ask about the unresolved decision
An interviewer might ask: “Which onboarding decision did you personally own, what alternatives did you consider, and what evidence changed your approach?”
Useful follow-ups could explore the person’s contribution to research, disagreements within the team, and what happened after release. Reviewers should choose questions that matter for the role and give applicants an opportunity to explain their work.
Add feedback and revisit the evaluation
After the conversation, add interview notes and team feedback. Check whether the new information addresses the original question. Distinguish what the applicant described from what the interviewer inferred, and keep remaining uncertainty visible.
The hiring team decides how much evidence is sufficient and what happens next. For a product walkthrough, see From résumé to interview with TrueRole.
Respond to AI concerns without promising certainty
The report says 41% of respondents identified applicants using AI to misrepresent themselves as a challenge (page 7). Separately, 35% said their process could not reliably detect that behavior (page 25).
Those findings support asking better questions about candidate claims. They do not mean every AI-assisted résumé is misleading, or that reviewing more materials proves authenticity. TrueRole’s evidence review and interview preparation help teams investigate what the materials support; they should not be treated as proof of fraud detection or independently verified skills.
Similarly, a résumé alone cannot establish work ethic or emotional intelligence. Where a capability matters for the role, use appropriate work samples, focused conversations, and human judgment to explore it.
Put the research in context
Criteria is a hiring assessment vendor. Its report describes respondent perspectives and includes the publisher’s interpretations; it is not an evaluation or endorsement of TrueRole.
The methodology on pages 31–33 identifies the survey period, country, sample size, and respondent mix. It does not provide recruitment methods, weighting, response rate, or a complete questionnaire. Staffing/recruiting accounts for 2% of respondents’ industries, so the findings should not be presented as agency-specific benchmarks.
Source: Criteria, 2026–2027 Hiring Benchmark Report, pages 7, 22, 25, 27, and 31–33. Survey of 1,027 U.S. hiring professionals, summer 2026. Figures describe reported challenges, concerns, and priorities, not demonstrated TrueRole outcomes.
Try the workflow with one role
Bring a role and the kinds of candidate materials your team reviews. Examine whether you can understand the assessment, inspect its support, and identify useful questions for the next conversation.
You can use TrueRole without an ATS, explore the platform, or bring a role to a demo.