A career claim is only the beginning.
Understand what professional evidence actually supports, where it is limited, and what needs to be verified next.
Follow the evidence
Each perspective reveals a different part of the same fictional scenario.
What does the evidence prove?
Compare Anna Müller's evidence with eight Head of ICT requirements. Trace the source behind each finding.
Key moment: budget authority remains partial
Open employer review →Where did the evidence come from?
Explore career history, verified relationships and observations, including strengths and limits of a direct report's knowledge.
Key moment: strong evidence can be narrow
Open professional view →Who can legitimately attest to what?
Walk through a simulated structured observation form with questions limited by the selected observation areas.
Key moment: insufficient basis is not adverse
Open referee journey →Resolve an evidence gap, not an entire reference.
Anna's fictional career record mentions a €9m ICT budget. That does not by itself establish her personal approval authority. In the employer view, simulate a targeted institutional confirmation and compare the assessment before and after — without changing the underlying evidence.
The simulation is hypothetical, browser-only and does not produce a verified record.
Three principles. No single score.
Score the evidence, not the person.Conclusions are scoped to what records and observations support.
Unknown is not negative.Missing evidence does not prove missing capability.
Collect evidence for a reason.Request what resolves material uncertainty, then stop.