Reject candidates at scale.
Without touching AI.
Your ATS can reject a thousand applicants before lunch — and expose you to algorithmic-discrimination liability in fourteen jurisdictions before dinner. RaaS rejects just as fast, but every single letter is curated by a human being. No profiling. No scoring. No Article 22 exposure.
No credit card. No applicant left un-disappointed.
Subject
An update on your application to Initech Global
Dear Applicant,
Your application was reviewed manually over the course of 9 days by our hiring panel. No automated screening tool was involved at any stage of this decision.
After careful consideration, we have decided to move forward with another candidate…
Warm regards,
The Hiring Team
Trusted by talent teams who would rather not be deposed
The liability you did not price in
Automated rejection is fast, cheap, and increasingly illegal. Here is what your resume-screening model is quietly accruing on your behalf.
Algorithmic discrimination claims
If your model learns that a career gap correlates with something, it will act on it, and you will be the one explaining that to a regulator. RaaS letters contain no correlations because they contain no thinking.
GDPR Article 22 exposure
Candidates have the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. Our decisions are solely unautomated, which is the same word with a different prefix and dramatically better legal outcomes.
Bias-audit obligations
NYC Local Law 144 requires annual independent bias audits of any Automated Employment Decision Tool. We are not a tool. We are a craft. Crafts are exempt.
How the human curation works
Four steps. Zero neural networks. One artisan.
You describe the rejection
Company, role, signatory, and your preferred level of warmth on a five-point scale from Brutal to Insufferably Sincere.
A human considers it
A progress bar appears. Work is occurring. Somewhere, a person is weighing a career against a job description. Please do not close the tab.
The letter is composed
Assembled from a corpus of fragments written entirely by hand, by people, with feelings, some of them quite recently.
You are indemnified
Every letter ships with a reference number and a footer of statutes it does not violate. Forward it to Legal. Legal will be delighted.
Indistinguishable from genuine human indifference
Candidates cannot tell the difference between a rejection written thoughtfully by a person and one assembled in 40 milliseconds from pre-written fragments. Neither can we, and we built it.
- ✓ Politeness slider. Calibrate exactly how much dignity the candidate receives, from a two-word dismissal to four paragraphs of unsolicited emotional labour.
- ✓ Collective irresponsibility. Sign as “The Hiring Team” so that no individual can ever be identified, contacted, or held to account.
- ✓ Gender-neutral honorifics. Because the one thing worse than rejecting someone is rejecting them as “Mr.” when they are not.
- ✓ Reproducible by reference. Every letter has a permalink and a case number, so when the tribunal asks, you have an audit trail instead of a stack trace.
What talent leaders are saying
“We used to reject 900 people a day and feel terrible about it. Now we reject 2,400 a day and feel compliant.”
“Our previous vendor's model was found to be discriminating on postcode. RaaS discriminates on nothing, because RaaS does not read the application.”
“The progress bar was the selling point for me. It really looks like someone is thinking about it.”