Appendix D. Ready-Made Regulations and Processes
How to choose a regulation
Select the row by work type and the column by team size. Then adapt SLA, roles, ATS fields, and cadence to the hiring volume, role risk, and process maturity. Do not copy the regulation mechanically: it must survive a high-load week.
Common baseline for any regulation
| Block | Minimum |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Manage the role, the candidate, the decision, and the communication without relying on one person’s memory. |
| Roles | Recruiter, hiring manager or client, interviewer, lead / HRD, coordinator or ops where applicable. |
| Funnel | New candidate → screening → hiring-manager interview → assessment → decision → offer → preboarding / closure. |
| SLA | Response deadline for each stage and an escalation owner. |
| Artefacts | Hiring plan, screening summary, scorecard, decision log, offer note, and pre-start context handover. |
| ATS fields | Stage, status, owner, next action, source, consent, reason, assessment facts, and SLA date. |
| QA | Weekly review of stalled candidates, empty reasons, weak facts, and AI outputs. |
Six compact regulations
| Variant | For whom | Owner | Rhythm | Mandatory artefacts | ATS minimum | QA / escalation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency: single client owner | Boutique agency, one recruiter | Client owner | Daily next actions, weekly client note | Client brief, shortlist definition, consent, submission note, feedback log | Client, vacancy, source, consent, owner, next action, client feedback | No feedback for 2 days, criteria change, duplicate conflict |
| Agency: small team | 2–7 recruiters / account managers | Recruitment lead + role owner | Twice-weekly role review, weekly client sync | Sourcing brief, QC role, shortlist scorecard, duplicate rules | Stage owner, QC status, feedback SLA, reason taxonomy | QC before submission, 10% submission sample |
| Agency: large team / RPO | Recruitment team with multiple clients | Account director + recruiting ops | Weekly team review, monthly leadership review | Account plan, SLA matrix, risk register, data glossary | Account-reporting fields, audit trail, consent, dashboards | Leadership-review escalation, compliance QA, monthly sample |
| In-house: one HR / recruiter | 1 HR / recruiter + hiring manager | HR / recruiter + hiring manager | Weekly 30-minute hiring review | One-page hiring plan, minimum funnel, hiring-manager SLA, candidate updates | Priority, stage / status, reason, owner, next action, consent | Hiring-manager feedback overdue by 2+ days, weekly stalled-candidate check |
| In-house: small team | 2–6 recruiters | Recruitment lead + role owner | Weekly portfolio review, monthly quality review | Interview cycle, scorecard, interviewer brief, decision log | Scorecard completion, feedback SLA, source / reason, offer fields | Missing scorecard, criteria drift, offer delay |
| In-house: large team | HRD / recruiting ops | HRD + recruiting ops | Weekly operational review, monthly leadership review, quarterly calibration | Operating model, prioritisation rules, AI policy, leadership dashboard | Mandatory fields, access rules, audit trail, AI usage log | SLA thresholds, data quality, fairness and privacy checks |
SLA Library
| Situation | Minimum SLA | Escalation |
|---|---|---|
| New relevant application | 1–3 working days | If applications pile up without review, reassess capacity or role priority. |
| Completed screening | By the end of the next working day | If there is no decision, assign a clarification owner. |
| After interview | 1–3 working days or the previously promised deadline | If the hiring manager stays silent, involve the lead, HRD, or client owner. |
| Offer decision | As soon as possible, usually 1–5 working days | If budget, finance, or legal approvals are needed, assign a separate owner and date. |
| Candidate delay | Before the promised deadline is breached | Even without news, send a short status update. |
Escalation Library
| Failure | What to do |
|---|---|
| Criteria changed after interview | Pause new decisions, update the hiring plan, and flag the affected candidates. |
| Client / manager does not provide feedback | Show the SLA breach, assign an owner, and agree on a new deadline or a pause. |
| Rejection reason is empty or weak | Do not close a stage without a reason; use the taxonomy and assessment facts. |
| AI output contains unverified conclusions | Remove the conclusions and keep only verifiable facts and human questions. |
| Candidate is stalled without a next step | Assign an owner, a promised-update date, and the next action. |
