Fit to a role is about one specific question: how closely does a candidate's natural talent align with what the role genuinely requires?
Every role is assessed across 24 continuums, 48 distinct elements of talent, and for each role, the platform holds a pre-loaded benchmark range based on what that role typically demands.
Here's how it works. Scores sit on a 20 to 80 scale. A benchmark range for a role might be, say, 50 to 65, favouring the middle to higher end of the scale. If that continuum measures attention to detail and accuracy, a range like that tells you the role genuinely needs that strength. Roles like a doctor, an accountant, or a lawyer would typically sit in exactly that kind of range, because the cost of low accuracy in those roles is significant.
When we assess a candidate, each element is scored against the benchmark. Within the range, two points. Within five points of the range, one point. Outside that, zero.
What makes this genuinely useful is what happens next. The areas where a candidate's natural fit is weakest become the basis for a set of targeted interview questions, designed to explore whether the candidate recognises that gap in themselves, and what learned behaviours they've developed to manage it.
This matters because some candidates are excellent at presenting themselves, but less consistent in actually performing the role day to day. And in roles like the ones we mentioned, a gap in accuracy isn't a minor issue; it's the difference between a correct prescription and a dangerous one, or a properly cited law and a costly mistake.
Fit to role won't guarantee performance. But it gives genuine insight into natural capability.
We look for an overall fit of 70% or more, with anything above 85% considered a high fit.
