AI Act Art. 13
For recruiters and hiring managers who operate Resume Screening AI. What the system is for, what it will not do, where it fails, and how you overrule it. A score is not a hiring decision.
Last updated 20 August 2026. Provider: Ksaitor Media Pte. Ltd. These instructions are how the product is meant to be used. They are not a substitute for your own legal advice.
Resume Screening AI is a first-pass tool for recruitment. You supply a job description and a set of resumes. The system parses those documents, scores each one against that job description, and shows a ranked list with a written rationale so a person can decide who to read next.
It is intended for recruiters, hiring managers, and workspace members screening applicants for a role they control. It is not a candidate-facing product and is not intended to talk to applicants.
Screening is currently paused for visitors in the EU and EEA. If you screen people who are in the EU from outside it, GDPR still applies to you as the employer. See the EU hiring-law page and the privacy policy.
Typical flow: paste or edit a job description, upload resumes (or email them in), wait for parsing and ranking, then review the list. You can re-rank after you change the job description.
Out of scope
If a hiring step is not on this list as something the product performs, assume a person has to do it.
The number is a fit estimate against the job text you provided. It does not reject anyone, does not shortlist anyone, and does not contact anyone. The legal and practical hiring decision is yours.
Under GDPR Article 22, an automated score can still count as a "decision" if the human who sees it never really disagrees with it. Do not rubber-stamp the ranking. If you would not advance someone, you must be able to say why in your own words, including when that means ignoring a high score or reading a low one.
You overrule by what you do next, not by editing the stored number. There is no "correct the score" control.
Assign review to people who have the time and authority to disagree. A junior recruiter who is measured only on "follow the AI list" is not adequate oversight.
Limitations
These are current characteristics of the product, not edge cases. Plan review around them.
Scans, unusual layouts, and very long files can lose content. Truncated text means a weaker or skewed score, not a complete reading of the original.
Name, email, and phone are stripped before ranking, and contact details are stripped before similarity embeddings. Graduation years, school names, and other identity signals can still reach the model. The recruiter view still shows the original name.
A clearly missing mandatory requirement usually costs 15 to 25 points. Several missing critical items can cap the score at 60. A technical role with a clearly non-technical background can cap at 40. A mandatory location not shown on the resume usually costs 10 to 20 points.
We have not published a labeled accuracy rate or an adverse-impact audit. Treat every score as an estimate to check, not a measured error rate.
Keyword stuffing, hidden text, and prompt-injection attempts can distort a score. We strip common injection patterns; that is not a guarantee. The model can also over-weight wording that happens to match the job post.
If you change the job description and re-rank, the new score overwrites the old one. Score history across re-ranks is not kept yet.
People who write or own the job description, who can read a resume, and who are allowed to decide who proceeds. They need to understand this page: intended use, limits, and that the score is not the decision. That is the AI literacy the role requires.
Do not upload resumes you are not allowed to process. Tell candidates, in your own privacy notice, that automated screening is part of the process. Job descriptions should be specific enough that "must have" versus "nice to have" is clear; vague briefs produce vague ranks.
Questions about the product: [email protected]. Related: Privacy policy, Terms of service, EU AI Act and hiring laws.
Keep reading