Because "we delivered the project" and "I delivered the project" are very different sentences — and a silent rejection probably shouldn't be the thing that decides who gets the job.
Give candidates a chance to actually make their case.
Most AI screening tools look at a borderline CV and make a call. Low score. Weak recommendation. Sometimes a polite rejection fired off before a human has even glanced at it.
/avlo: doesn't do that. It asks.
Picture the scene. A candidate lands in your inbox. They look interesting — genuinely — but there are gaps. Maybe their job title is vague. Maybe they've listed responsibilities without any sense of ownership. Maybe there are years unaccounted for, or a skill mentioned once in passing that happens to be exactly what you need.
You'd love to find out more. But you have 200 other CVs, three calls this afternoon, and a hiring manager who wants a shortlist by Thursday. So what happens? The candidate gets a "thanks but no thanks" — and neither of you ever find out whether they were actually brilliant.
What other tools do with a borderline candidate
Most AI screening tools are built around a simple principle: score, rank, cut. Candidates are auto-triaged — approved if they score high enough, declined if they don't, and "held for human review" if they fall in the middle.
Which sounds reasonable, until you consider what that actually means in a busy team: it goes into a pile that someone will get to eventually. Possibly never. Almost certainly too late.
The blunter tools don't even bother with a middle category. Borderline candidates get a low recommendation or a soft rejection, and that's that. No follow-up. No curiosity. Just a score based on a document written in 45 minutes on a Sunday night.
The "we" problem — and why it matters more than you think
There's a well-documented pattern in how people write CVs. Women, in particular, are more likely to use collaborative, passive language — "we delivered," "the team achieved," "supported the rollout of" — rather than planting a flag and claiming individual ownership. It's not a lack of confidence. It's a writing style. A cultural habit. Sometimes just good manners.
But for a screening algorithm pattern-matching against signals of individual impact? That language gets quietly penalised. No drama, no explanation — just a slightly lower score and a slightly worse outcome, repeated across thousands of applications.
A candidate who wrote "we transformed the sales function" might have been the one who actually did it. A rejection email doesn't give them the chance to say so.
The Clarification Loop is a direct response to this. When /avlo: identifies language that's ambiguous about individual contribution, it doesn't assume the worst. It does what a good recruiter would do if they had the time — it asks: "Can you tell me a bit more about your specific role in this?"
That one question can be the difference between finding the right person and never knowing they existed.
How it actually works
/avlo: screens each CV the way an experienced recruiter would — reading for context, ownership, relevance, and gaps, not just ticking keyword boxes. When it finds a candidate who could be suitable but has areas that need more information, rather than making a judgment call on incomplete evidence, it opens a conversation.
The candidate is contacted with targeted, specific questions. Not a full second application. Not a form with seventeen fields. Just the bits that actually matter.
They respond. /avlo: re-reads. The new context is folded back into the evaluation and the recommendation is updated. What you're looking at isn't a gut-feel ranking built on a vague CV — it's a considered call, based on a real exchange. The kind of thing a great recruiter would get from a ten-minute phone screen, done automatically, at whatever volume you're working at.
Why this is better for everyone
For candidates, it's fairer. Full stop. The way you write your CV — the stylistic choices, the cultural tendencies, the things you simply didn't think to mention — aren't silently deciding your fate. You get a moment to be heard.
For recruiters, it's better screening. You're not making shortlist decisions on half the information. You're not accidentally discarding someone brilliant because their CV was a bit modest. Your recommendation to the hiring manager is one you can actually stand behind.
And for the broader question of whether AI can be trusted in recruitment at all — which is a very live debate, and rightly so — it matters enormously. Candidates who don't get the role but felt genuinely considered are far more likely to apply again, refer a friend, or say something kind about you on Glassdoor. In volume hiring, that's not nothing.
The best recruiters don't reject on instinct. They ask one more question first. The Clarification Loop is /avlo: doing exactly that — just without needing to block out a Thursday afternoon.
Part of the /avlo: USP Series — a look at what makes us different, one feature at a time.
Early access is open at avlo.uk
