Getting to the truth of the AI enhanced CV...

Every candidate has an AI-optimised CV now, and most of them look exactly like what you asked for.

The right keywords are there, the structure is tight, and the achievements are written to mirror the job brief almost perfectly. Screening tools score them highly and they land on your shortlist looking entirely credible. The problem is that no algorithm can interrogate what actually happened behind the document.

A candidate claiming end-to-end PMO delivery may have maintained a RAID log while a senior leader ran the governance. Enterprise change management may mean writing communications without ever owning a stakeholder strategy. By the time that becomes clear, your program has moved on and your steering committee is waiting on a resource decision.

AI is bringing speed to parts of the recruitment process, and there is genuine value in that. What it cannot replicate is the conversation that gets underneath the document, asking someone to walk through what they owned, how decisions were made, and where things genuinely got hard. That human element is where the real assessment happens, and it remains the part that matters most.

Before any candidate reaches you, I go through their history in detail, role by role. Precision over volume, with every shortlist stress-tested before it reaches your desk.

You are running a complex program. You deserve a hiring process that keeps pace with it.

I am curious whether others are finding this too. Are AI-enhanced CVs making it harder to identify the right candidate, or are you finding ways to cut through?