Verification & Compliance Best Practices
The Cost of Assumptions
A candidate should be able to speak to the experience and accomplishments included on their résumé, and it is reasonable to explore those topics through conversation. However, difficulty communicating is not, by itself, evidence of fraud.
Stay curious, observe what you see and hear, and continue asking thoughtful questions. There may be other factors influencing a candidate’s performance. They may be nervous, communicating in a second language, or managing a disability or accommodation need that has not been disclosed and is not required to be disclosed.
Every indicator discussed in this course should be viewed as a reason to gather more information, not a reason to reach a conclusion. Focus on understanding the underlying cause before determining whether additional review is needed.
If something appears to be creating a barrier to a candidate’s ability to participate fully in the interview process, consult your recruiter or manager promptly so the appropriate support and accommodations can be considered.
The goal is to make fair, informed hiring decisions. Taking the time to verify information, ask follow-up questions, and consider other explanations helps protect both the integrity of the hiring process and the candidate experience.
Fig 1 — Document, Don’t Accuse
Write down what you observed, never what you think it means. Objective observations can be reviewed, verified, and acted on appropriately. Assumptions and accusations make it harder to evaluate concerns fairly.
The first three modules focused on recognizing potential concerns. This module focuses on what to do next, starting with a simple but important practice: document what you observed, not what you think it means.
For example:
- “The candidate stated they were located in California, but the file contained a timestamp indicating Tokyo.” This is an observable fact.
- “I think this candidate is committing fraud.” This is a conclusion.
Documenting objective observations helps ensure concerns can be reviewed fairly, consistently, and appropriately.
This is often where hiring teams feel uncertain, but the process is straightforward. A factual, dated observation does not harm a candidate if there is a legitimate explanation. In many cases, there is. Objective documentation allows concerns to be reviewed without making assumptions or accusations.
Fig 2 — The Verification Checklist
Verification should be consistent and repeatable. Use approved identity verification methods, look for consistency across interview stages, and verify information as you have been directed.
Verification should also follow a consistent process. Whenever possible:
- Confirm identity using approved verification methods.
- Look for consistency across interviews, application materials, and onboarding activities.
- Verify employment history and other information through trusted, independent sources.
- Apply the same verification practices consistently across candidates.
Consistency matters. When verification is part of the standard hiring process, it supports fair hiring decisions and helps ensure candidates are treated equitably.
Fig 3 — Notice, Verify, Escalate
Notice potential concerns. Verify through questions and objective review. If concerns remain unresolved, escalate them through the appropriate process. Recruiters escalate to their manager. Hiring managers and panel members escalate through the recruiter supporting the requisition.
When a review or verification step doesn’t fully resolve a concern, document your observations and escalate them to your manager through the appropriate process.If a concern remains after reasonable follow-up and verification, document your observations and share them with the recruiter supporting the requisition.
Your role is to identify and communicate objective observations, not to determine intent or conduct an investigation. The broader assessment, including whether additional stakeholders need to be involved, will be handled through established Talent Acquisition processes.Your role is to provide objective observations and context from the interview process. The recruiter will partner with the appropriate stakeholders to determine whether additional review or escalation is needed.
Just as importantly, this process does not require you to act as an investigator. You should not confront candidates, conduct independent investigations, or draw conclusions based on a single observation.
The goal is to make fair, informed hiring decisions through a consistent process. The same approach that helps identify potential concerns also helps clarify situations where there may be a legitimate explanation for what you observed.
You've documented the pattern. What's the right next move?
Feedback
This scenario followed the same process you’ve seen throughout the course: Notice → Verify → Escalate.
At this point, you’ve already completed the first two steps. Multiple observations have been documented, verification has been performed, and the concern remains unresolved. The appropriate next step is to escalate the information through the established process.
Choosing to screen out the candidate based solely on fit (A) may address the hiring decision, but it does not address the concern itself. Choosing to contact the candidate directly (B) or quietly note the concern without escalation (D) can prevent the appropriate stakeholders from reviewing the information and determining next steps.
Your responsibility is not to determine intent or conduct an investigation. Your responsibility is to document objective observations, follow the verification process (start with your Recruiter), and escalate concerns when appropriate.