A candidate match score tells a bid team how closely each consultant fits a job description. When the top score looks low, or too few people qualify, the temptation is to adjust the weights until the numbers look better.
Sometimes that is exactly the right move. Sometimes it hides the real problem. This post sets out when changing the weights reflects what the client actually wants, when the fix belongs in the consultant’s CV instead, and how to widen a thin shortlist without lowering the bar on what matters.
- A candidate match score is built from weights on each requirement, from 0 to 100 points, and it can be recalculated after any change.
- Change the weights when the client’s priorities differ from the default weighting, for example when one technology matters far more to this client.
- Avoid changing weights just to push the top score higher. A strong consultant with a low score often has an incomplete CV, and the fix is an update.
- A short questionnaire lets the consultant confirm missing experience, and the answers update the profile directly.
- When too few consultants qualify, separate essential requirements from secondary ones, then lower the secondary ones or the minimum score.
- Requirements that do not matter to this client should be removed or set to zero instead of left to dilute the score.
- Every change to the weights should be one the bid team could explain to the client.
What a Candidate Match Score Actually Measures
Each requirement in a profile match carries a weight. Total years of experience, years in the core technology, frameworks, certifications, industry background and languages each count for a set number of points: 0 when the requirement does not count, 1 for a nice-to-have, and 10, 50 or 100 as importance rises.
A consultant’s candidate match score reflects how many of those weighted requirements their profile evidences. Alongside the score, the results show which requirements each consultant meets, which are missing, and how many years of experience they carry per skill.
That breakdown matters as much as the number. A score of 85 tells the team a consultant is close. The breakdown shows why, and what stands between that consultant and the role.
How scores are paired with the skills behind them is covered in automate candidate shortlisting with Sprint CV Match.
Is a higher candidate match score always a better candidate?
Only if the weights reflect what the client actually values.
The score is a calculation over weights someone chose. If those weights treat a secondary skill as essential, or ignore something the client cares about, the ranking can put the wrong people at the top. The score is only as reliable as the weighting behind it.
When the Client’s Priorities Differ From the Default Weights
The default weights come from the job description as it was read. Clients do not always weigh their own requirements the way the document suggests. A technical annex may list ten technologies with equal prominence while the client really needs deep experience in two of them.
This is the clearest case for changing the weights. If the client considers one framework essential and another a nice-to-have, the weighting should say so. Raising the essential requirement to 100 points, dropping the secondary one to 1 and removing anything irrelevant brings the score in line with how the client will judge the CVs.
After the change, updating the score recalculates every consultant. Rankings can move considerably: a consultant who looked strong on breadth may drop, while someone with deep experience in the one technology that matters rises to the top.
How do we know whether the client’s weighting differs from the default?
From what the client has said or written about its priorities, never from how the results look.
Clarifications, evaluation criteria in the tender documents and earlier conversations with the client are the evidence. If none of them point to a different weighting, the default is the better starting point, and a change made only because the scores feel low is hard to justify later.
When a Low Candidate Match Score Points to an Incomplete CV
A consultant can end up with a low candidate match score for two very different reasons. Either they genuinely lack what the role needs, or they have it and their CV does not show it. The match only sees what is on the profile.
Reweighting does nothing useful for the second case. Lowering the weight of the requirement the consultant appears to miss raises their score, but it also changes the score for everyone else and weakens that requirement across the whole shortlist. The more direct fix is to get the profile updated.
A questionnaire link, shared by email, Teams or any channel the team already uses, asks the consultant to confirm specific requirements, such as whether they have experience with a given technology and where they used it. Their answers update the profile directly, without the consultant reworking a full CV. The steps are in how to launch a questionnaire.
Should we lower a requirement’s weight so a strong consultant scores higher?
Usually not. If the consultant has the experience, update the CV. If they do not, the score is telling the truth.
Changing a weight to favour one person shifts the scoring for every consultant in the search. Confirming the missing experience with the consultant fixes the actual gap, keeps the weighting honest, and leaves a more accurate profile for the next bid too.
When Too Few Consultants Make the Shortlist
The opposite problem shows up when a request needs ten consultants and only three meet the criteria. The question then is which requirements can flex without compromising what the client will evaluate.
Start by separating essentials from secondary requirements. Essentials stay at full weight. Secondary ones can move down to nice-to-have, and requirements that do not matter for this client can be removed. The minimum score and the number of consultants returned can also be adjusted before the search runs again.
The report view helps with this decision. It shows, across the consultants found, how many have each skill and which certificates and languages appear, so it is easy to spot a requirement almost nobody meets. That requirement is either a genuine constraint or a candidate for a lower weight, and the choice should be deliberate.
Profiles that were never uploaded do not appear in any search. A thin result can therefore also mean CVs are missing from the database, which is a different problem from skills missing in the group.
Can we widen the shortlist without lowering our standards?
Yes, by flexing only the secondary requirements and keeping the essentials at full weight.
The essentials are what the client will evaluate, so they stay where they are. Moving secondary requirements down to nice-to-have, removing irrelevant ones and adjusting the minimum score brings more consultants into view while the ranking still rewards the experience that matters most.
Checking a Borderline Consultant Before Changing Anything
Before changing anything for a borderline consultant, it is worth checking the evidence directly. The AI Assistant can analyse a consultant against the job description point by point, showing for each requirement whether the person matches, and detailing project by project where they used the requested technology and for how many years.
That analysis answers the question a number cannot: is the gap real, or is the experience there under a different name or buried in a project description? If the experience is there, the profile needs updating. If it is not, the candidate match score was right all along.
The same point-by-point view is useful later, when the consultant is shortlisted and the team prepares for a client interview.
Choosing the Right Fix: Weights, CV or Criteria
Score problems tend to fall into one of five situations, and each has a different fix.
| Situation | What it looks like | The right move |
|---|---|---|
| Client weighting differs | The client stresses some requirements more than the job description suggests | Change the weights to match the client, then update the score |
| Incomplete CV | A strong consultant is missing a requirement they very likely have | Send a questionnaire to confirm the experience and update the profile |
| Genuine gap | The consultant lacks an essential requirement | Leave the weights alone: the score is accurate |
| Too few qualify | Fewer consultants than the request needs | Keep essentials at full weight, lower secondary requirements or the minimum score |
| Irrelevant requirement | Listed in the job description but unimportant to this client | Remove it or set it to 0 points |
In each case the test is the same: could the bid team explain the change to the client? A weighting that mirrors the client’s own priorities passes that test. A weighting designed to make one consultant look better does not.
Before You Change the Weights on a Candidate Match Score
Before adjusting any weight, it is worth checking that:
- ✓The change reflects something the client has said or written about its priorities
- ✓Low scores have been checked for incomplete CVs before any requirement was downgraded
- ✓Essential requirements stay at full weight
- ✓Irrelevant requirements are removed or set to zero
- ✓Borderline consultants have been checked point by point against the job description
- ✓The score has been updated and consultants who moved sharply in the ranking have been reviewed
- ✓The minimum score and the number of consultants returned still suit the request
Keeping weights, profiles and results in one place, visible to every manager working on the bid, is what an Enterprise CV Manager is designed for.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is a candidate match score calculated?
Each requirement in the job description carries a weight of 0, 1, 10, 50 or 100 points. A consultant’s score reflects how many of those weighted requirements their profile evidences, and it is recalculated whenever the weights change.
When should the weights in a match score be changed?
When the client’s own priorities differ from the default weighting, for example when one technology or certification matters far more to the client than the job description suggests.
Why does a strong consultant have a low match score?
Either they genuinely lack a weighted requirement, or their CV does not show experience they have. The score breakdown shows which requirement is missing, and a questionnaire can confirm it with the consultant.
What can we do when too few consultants match a job description?
Keep essential requirements at full weight, lower secondary ones to nice-to-have, remove irrelevant ones and adjust the minimum score. It is also worth checking whether some CVs are missing from the database.
Does changing the weights affect every consultant in the search?
Yes. Updating the score recalculates every consultant against the new weights, so rankings across the whole shortlist can move.
Final Thought
A candidate match score supports the bid team’s judgement, and the weights are where that judgement shows. Changing them to mirror the client makes the ranking more useful. Changing them to flatter a result makes it less trustworthy.
When a score looks wrong, the answer usually sits in one of three places: the client’s priorities, the consultant’s CV, or the criteria themselves. Working out which one comes before touching any number.
Weighing up how your team scores consultants?
See how weights, score breakdowns and consultant questionnaires work together, so every change to a ranking is one you can explain to the client.
About the Author
Seven years of watching recruiters format the same CV three different ways for three different clients led Marco Pincho to build Sprint CV, an enterprise CV manager used by companies including VASS, Fujitsu, Sword Group, and Expleo to standardize CV creation and submission. He holds an Executive Master in IT Management from Solvay Brussels School and spends most weeks on calls with recruitment leaders and HR directors, working through documentation problems like the one covered in this article. Connect with Marco on LinkedIn
