# GTM job shortlist exercise, version 1

Created October 26, 2026. The three source cards describe real employer postings checked on that date. **The candidate, experience inventory and decisions are fictional.** No application, recruiter conversation or hiring outcome is represented.

## Use the packet

1. Read `source-facts.md` and the candidate below.
2. Duplicate `shortlist-worksheet.csv` once for each role. Enter facts and their source IDs separately from candidate evidence.
3. Derive the next action using the rules below, then compare with `worked-comparison.md`.

The worksheet uses values only, with blank cells for your entries. Open it in a spreadsheet app or text editor; there are no formulas, macros, external connections or calculated fit scores. In your own search, replace the fictional profile with your constraints and evidence. Preserve source URLs and check dates. Do not put private customer data, confidential work samples or sensitive personal details into a public copy.

## Fictional candidate: Alex

The profile is supplied for the exercise, not inferred from any real person.

| ID | Kind | Candidate input |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Fixed constraint | Lives in Albany, New York; requires a fully remote role and will not relocate or commute to a regular office. |
| C2 | Work preference | Prefers hands-on analysis and automation to owning multichannel campaign delivery. Would consider mentoring or guiding colleagues; wants to clarify the time split before committing. |
| C3 | Experience | Five years in B2B revenue operations and analytics. |
| E1 | Production evidence | Built and maintained a Python API integration between a CRM and warehouse for Sales Ops, including failure alerts and an operating handoff. Can explain personal contribution and maintenance decisions. No revenue lift is claimed. |
| E2 | Production evidence | Built SQL funnel reporting used in weekly operating reviews; checked definitions and missing data and maintained it for six months. |
| E3 | Tool-use evidence | Uses Claude for permitted analysis tasks and retains a record of checks and corrections. This does not imply permission to use AI in an employer's assessment. |
| E4 | Collaboration evidence | Mentored two colleagues on reporting work. Has not formally managed analysts. |
| G1 | Evidence gap | Has no supplied example of owning demand-generation/ABM campaigns or writing outbound sales sequences. |
| G2 | Evidence gap | Has worked with HubSpot and APIs but has no supplied hands-on Salesforce or Clay example. A different tool is not evidence of identical platform experience. |

This inventory is deliberately incomplete. Personal authorization to work, sponsorship needs, salary requirements and other offer conditions are not supplied; the exercise makes no decision about them. A reader for whom an unresolved item is a fixed constraint must resolve it before treating a role as compatible.

## Decision rules

Assess three dimensions separately. Do not average them into a score.

**Constraint status:**

- `conflict`: an explicit employer condition contradicts the supplied fixed constraint.
- `no conflict shown`: the inspected evidence does not contradict that supplied constraint. This is narrow, provisional and not a declaration of complete eligibility.
- `unresolved`: the available information cannot determine compatibility with a supplied fixed constraint.

**Work-evidence status:**

- `relevant examples`: named evidence maps to material work in the posting. This is not proof that every qualification is met.
- `material gap`: a central expectation lacks a corresponding supplied example. It is not a claim that the candidate cannot learn it or that the employer would reject them.
- `unclear`: the requirement or candidate evidence needs clarification before comparison.

**Preference status:** record whether the work seems aligned, mixed or unresolved, with the reason. A preference can guide effort without being mislabeled as an employer requirement.

Then choose a concrete next action:

1. An explicit fixed-constraint conflict is sufficient to defer this role for this candidate. Extra skills do not erase it. Revisit only if the candidate's constraint or the employer's stated arrangement changes.
2. An unresolved fixed constraint calls for verification, not an assumed yes or no.
3. With no conflict shown, relevant evidence can justify preparing a focused application or question. Retain all other unknowns; do not say “fully qualified.”
4. A material evidence gap can justify holding a role behind better-supported options or asking whether that expectation is flexible. Explain the gap instead of manufacturing an equivalence or promised outcome.

Several reasons can coexist. For example, a role can have relevant technical duties and an explicit location conflict. Record both, but let the fixed constraint govern whether Alex spends time applying under the current assumptions.

## Questions before the worked answer

- Which source fact, if any, directly conflicts with C1?
- Which two evidence IDs would Alex use for each role, and where are they insufficient?
- Does the absence of formal management prove a conflict with O4?
- Which platform or campaign expectations remain unsupported by the supplied record?
- What one employer question would resolve the most important uncertainty for each role?
- What new evidence would change the current decision?

The rules are an editorial aid for allocating a candidate's time. They are not the employers' screening logic, an application requirement or a validated predictor of an interview. If a posting expires, retain the method, mark its status, and use a current source for the next comparison.