Mokka doesn’t just score candidates — it shows the evidence and reasoning behind every score. This transparency helps recruiters and hiring managers understand why someone is marked as Outstanding, Strong, or Average.
📊 How Evidence is Collected
Responsibilities Matching – Candidate CV is compared against role responsibilities. AI highlights overlapping tasks and responsibilities.
Goals & Success Criteria – Candidates share text or live interview responses to role goals. Their answers are analyzed for alignment, direct role, measurable results, and specificity.
Accomplishments Evidence – Past achievements are linked to role expectations using AI-driven analysis.
Requirements – AI detects and validates technical requirements from CVs and answers, showing whether they are clearly demonstrated or only partially supported.
🔎 What You See in Profiles
Highlighted Evidence – For each requirement or goal, Mokka shows the candidate’s relevant experience snippet.
Justification Scores – Each piece of evidence is rated for strength:
Aligned – Relevant to the requirement.
Direct Role – Candidate’s own contribution vs. team effort.
Measurable – Clear metrics or outcomes provided.
Specific – Detailed tools, methods, or approaches mentioned.
Validation Levels – Requirements are marked as:
• Level 0 – No evidence.
• Level 1 – Some indication.
• Level 2 – Strong, explicit evidence.
🧩 Evidence in Reports
Candidate PDF reports include linked evidence for each scored area.
Recruiters and hiring managers see exactly why the system scored the candidate a certain way.
Evidence is pulled directly from CV text, application answers, or AI interview transcripts.
✅ Best Practices
Check the justifications, not just the score – A candidate might score Strong but with weak measurable evidence.
Look for Level 2 evidence when shortlisting – these are the clearest indicators of fit.
Use evidence in hiring discussions – share snippets with hiring managers to back up recommendations.
Balance AI and human judgment – Mokka provides structured evidence, but final interpretation should include recruiter expertise.