For HR teams, recruiters and the software they use to screen candidates
When a candidate asks how they were assessed, show what the screening did, unchanged.
A rejected candidate asks for an explanation, alleges discrimination, or exercises their data rights. AI used to recruit or select people is high-risk under the AI Act, and the logs of what it did are the first thing anyone asks for.
- When it is tested
- A candidate’s complaint or discrimination claim; a data-protection request; a labour inspectorate or market-surveillance authority asking for logs.
- What you will be asked for
- For AI used to recruit or select people, a high-risk use (AI Act, Annex III, point 4): the logs it generates, kept by the deployer for at least six months (Article 26(6)); for a decision based solely on automated processing, the candidate’s right to human intervention and to contest it (GDPR, Article 22).
- What goes wrong today
- Screening tools keep their logs inside the vendor’s platform, criteria change between rounds, and months later nobody can show which version ranked whom, and why.
- What changes
- Each screening decision and each human review is sealed as it is made, with the version of the tool and the criteria used. The candidate’s data stays in your systems; only a salted fingerprint reaches us.
Sealing shows that a record existed unchanged from a given moment; whether your records are enough is yours to judge. What the AI Act asks · Automated and AI decisions
Try it in two minutes
- Choose a real file of your own: a screening report or an interview evaluation. It is read in your browser and never uploaded.
- Seal it on Seal a file. A free sandbox key is issued on the page; only a salted fingerprint reaches the log.
- Make a copy, change one character in it, and check both against the receipt at Check. The copy fails; the original passes.
From your own systems it is one API call per record. Integrate · Other industries