HR failure modes with Jev
Inbound applications and tickets mix eligibility, policy questions, and messy free text. The ATS, payroll, and your employment counsel still own outcomes. Jev can score job-related criteria you wrote. It is not an ATS and must not become a proxy for protected-class decisions.
This unofficial page is the failure modes slice of the HR screening operations pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to HR screening operations failure modes. Primary search language: HR Jev failure modes. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): Job-criteria Nouls with an explicit do-not-encode-protected-class lint — not a clone of an ATS or HR-screening product page.
HR use-case context
HR screening operations breaks in product-specific ways. This page lists those modes so you can write tests — not a generic “AI can be wrong” essay, and not a rival limitations-page clone.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: HR screening.
Failure Modes inputs
Many failures start as contract violations (distractors, missing application or HR ticket text text). Canonical shape:
{
"app": { "id": "c-190", "text": "5 years Python; no work auth mentioned; relocating July." },
"role": { "must": "Python in production; authorized to work without sponsorship this cycle." },
"ticket": { "type": "inbound_app" }
}Decision signals and actions
- ATS products own pipelines and compliance letters (compare).
- A reject Choice is not an adverse-action legal process.
- Jaggedness + bias risk: do not smuggle “name sounds local” into criteria.
- Work-auth Noul is not an I-9 or counsel opinion.
- No invented quality-of-hire lifts.
HTTP vs application:
| You see | Class | HR move |
|---|---|---|
| 401 / 422 / 429 / 529 | Documented HTTP | Fix key/body or back off — errors |
| 200 + flat confidence or Noul ≈ 0.5 | Low confidence | Hold; do not auto-reject or take employment action |
| Empty gather | Missing evidence | Skip Jev or ask “is enough information present?” |
Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” HR screening operations score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.
Guardrails and escalation
Fail closed: do not auto-reject or take employment action. Schema-safe answers are not factual correctness. TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For HR screening operations, treat auto_reject as the high bar (auto-rejecting a candidate or taking employment action). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.
Evaluation and rollout notes
Your canary set should include each bullet above.
- False auto-reject on a planted qualified canary (block ship)
- Missed hold_docs
- Override rate by recruiter — high override means criteria are wrong
Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.
Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.
Pack map
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | policy checks |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | you are here |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
If the API returns 200, is the decision good? 200 only means the call parsed. Low confidence, Noul ≈ 0.5, or a policy miss are application failures.
Where do official weaknesses live? TypeSafe’s jev-1.13 jaggedness note — distractors, arithmetic, adversarial content. We do not invent more.
Where is the rest of the HR pack? Start with HR evaluation and HR decision workflow. Cluster hub: Use cases.
Is this an ATS or hiring decision system of record? No. It is an unofficial typed-screening pattern. Employment law stays with you and counsel.
Can we score “culture fit”? We recommend you do not. Keep criteria job-related and lint for proxies.
What this page does not claim
- Not an ATS, not employment-law advice, not a fairness certificate.
- No quality-of-hire numbers.
- Not official TypeSafe.
- Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.
Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.