LEGACY50 application file: CV, report, matching and candidate approval
The LEGACY50 application file combines the candidate profile, updated CV, assessment report, matching analysis and candidate-reviewed application email for a specific job opportunity.
The 80% compatibility threshold is used to prepare a dossier; it is not a hiring probability, a certification or proof that every requirement is met.
Features vary by solution and contract. These pointers help you ask questions during a demonstration; they do not imply that a feature is exclusive to LEGACY50 or unavailable in other tools.
What the file contains
The file distinguishes candidate declarations, documented evidence, assessment results, points to verify and the version that the candidate has approved.
Candidate validation
The candidate must see and approve the final version before LEGACY50 sends it through the platform. The transmission is not delegated to an external personal mailbox.
Fictional demonstration: maintenance technician
Entirely invented teaching example, with no real candidate, employer or customer. No assessment was administered and this example does not attest to a recruitment outcome.
Fictional requirement: preventive conveyor maintenance, fault diagnosis and intervention reports, on site during daytime hours. The employer must specify the required authorisations before any intervention.
From maintenance requirements to points to verify
| Job requirement | Example evidence and source | Evidence status | Question to ask | Action and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maintain the conveyor's preventive service schedule | “I maintained the service schedule and assisted with conveyor interventions.” No completed schedule is attached. S1 | Declared | Which due date did you update yourself, and who decided which interventions to carry out? | Candidate: specify their contribution and propose an anonymised extract they are authorised to share. Maintenance manager: review that example. |
| Document an intermittent conveyor stoppage | “I propose securing the area, recording the time and symptoms of the stoppage, then alerting the supervisor before intervening.” This is a written answer, not a diagnosis performed. S2 | Observed in writing | Which symptoms would you distinguish from assumptions, and what information would you pass to the supervisor? | Maintenance manager: ask the candidate to explain their reasoning at interview and, if needed, define a supervised assessment suited to the equipment. |
| Record the intervention and conveyor restart | The draft includes fields for “reported symptom”, “assisted intervention” and “part concerned”. The post-intervention check and the person approving restart are not recorded. S3 | Observed in writing | Which check was actually performed and who approved restart? What should remain blank if you do not know? | Candidate: add only known facts. Maintenance manager: check the expected traceability without treating the draft as an approved return to service. |
| Hold authorisations appropriate to the assigned operations | Fictional documents S1 to S3 contain no authorisation or qualification evidence. A cautious written answer is not a substitute for these documents. S1–S3 | Absent | Which operations will be assigned on this conveyor, and which supporting documents must be checked for that scope? | Employer: specify the operations, requirements and verification procedure before assigning work. Candidate: provide the requested documents, if available. |
| Work on site during daytime hours | No availability date or acceptance of the site's hours appears in fictional documents S1 to S3. The experience described does not answer this question. S1–S3 | Absent | Are the specific hours and proposed start date compatible with your availability? | Recruiter: communicate the site, hours and proposed date. Candidate: confirm or correct their availability before any presentation. |
Example sources, all invented
- S1 · Fictional CV extract D1 A career declaration, without references or supporting documents.
- S2 · Fictional written answer Intermittent stoppage scenario; no machine exercise or administered assessment.
- S3 · Fictional intervention report draft An incomplete document, not proof of an intervention or restart approval.
D1, D2: the version and recipient of consent
Version D1, fictional recipient: recruitment manager at the example workshop. The candidate would review the statements, correct discrepancies and authorise this version for this recipient. A changed version or recipient would require renewed approval. Nothing is sent in this demonstration.
| Version reviewed | Content and change | Fictional recipient | Consent to obtain |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | S1 reports assisting with interventions without specifying supervision. | Recruitment manager at the example workshop | The candidate must review D1 and explicitly authorise D1 for this recipient. No consent is collected here. |
| D2 | The candidate clarifies S1: “interventions assisted under supervision”. Autonomy remains unverified; the corrected dossier must be reviewed. | Recruitment manager at the example workshop | Even if D1 had been authorised, that consent would not cover D2. The candidate must approve the corrected version again for this recipient. |
| D2 · different recipient | D2's content is unchanged; only the proposed recipient changes. | Maintenance manager at the example workshop | Even if D2 had been authorised for recruitment, that consent would not cover this new recipient. Renewed explicit candidate consent would be required. |
No automatic consent, no email, no transmission: these editorial scenarios trigger no action on a candidate dossier.
Limits when interpreting the dossier
- Declared
- The fictional profile reports maintaining a service schedule and assisting with conveyor repairs. This statement alone does not demonstrate independent technical ability.
- Observed in the fictional exercise
- In the invented written answer, the person proposes securing the area, gathering symptoms and alerting the supervisor before intervening. No work on equipment was observed.
- Interpretation to verify
- The answer suggests a cautious diagnostic approach. At interview, request a detailed example and distinguish independent tasks from supervised work.
- Not verified
- Autonomy on the specific conveyor, authorisations, references and availability still require verification. No score or certificate is assigned in this demonstration.
The 80% compatibility threshold is used to prepare a dossier: it is not a hiring probability, a certification or proof that every requirement is met.
Questions about the application file
- What does the LEGACY50 application file contain?
- It includes an identity-protected CV, evidence report, job-fit analysis, available assessment summary and an application email for the candidate to review and approve.
- Does the candidate approve before transmission?
- Yes. The candidate approves a precise version inside LEGACY50 for a clearly identified job and recipient before any transmission.
- Does LEGACY50 replace an ATS or LinkedIn?
- LEGACY50 can complement those tools. Its difference is the continuity between job fit, documented dossier, candidate control and tracked transmission.
After the demonstration, what comes next?
Candidate: check before sharing
The example illustrates a method, not a score assigned to your profile. Prepare your CV, photo and required assessments; check errors, documents and the recipient before consent. Nothing here transmits a file.
Company or agency: prepare the interview
Use the unverified points to request evidence that could confirm them. A report replaces neither an interview nor role-specific checks. The agency organises the client review; the company decides what happens next for its vacancy.
Check what the service includes
Free posting publishes the job; it does not activate a CRM or candidate search. The Agentic licence lets one named user manage their authorised scope, not an open CV database. Optional assessments and assisted recruitment are separate. Selection of up to five profiles and post-hire follow-up depend on the accepted assignment when included, not on every published job.