Résumé vs. work sample
A Strong Résumé Did Not Predict a Strong Work Sample
The résumé and the work sample were measuring different things. Treating one as a substitute for the other would have hidden capable people—and advanced the wrong ones.
The finding
Résumé strength barely moved with job-scenario performance.
A correlation of 0.03 is effectively flat. Candidates who looked stronger on paper did not reliably score higher when asked to reason through work resembling the role.
What it means
Use the résumé to orient. Use evidence to decide.
Past experience is not a work sample.
A résumé can frame the conversation. It cannot show how a candidate handles the exact ambiguity, communication, or tradeoffs in the open role.
Test the work before the final interview.
A bounded, role-specific scenario creates evidence while there is still time to compare candidates consistently.
Do not let polish become a proxy for performance.
Clear writing and presentation matter in many roles. They should be evaluated where they matter, not allowed to stand in for every other capability.
Method
A paired, aggregate snapshot
We matched the latest completed first work-sample scenario to a valid résumé evaluation for 729 distinct applications across 28 job postings. We calculated the Pearson correlation between the two internal scores.
We also checked the relationship within job postings with enough paired observations. The pair-weighted result remained near zero at 0.02, reducing the chance that the overall result was caused only by mixing different roles.
This is a selected applicant subset, not a controlled experiment. Scores are AI-assisted internal screening signals, not universal measures of ability, and the result does not claim that résumés have no value. Candidate records, prompts, rubric weights, thresholds, and role-level results remain private.