Departments view
Review authorized and filled positions, vacancies, hiring-stage time and recorded retention by department. Measures carry source, date and evidence labels. Missing inputs stay unknown; illustration data is not an agency baseline.
Departments and sourcing/channel results are available in code; speed and quality improvements remain objectives.
For the people behind public service
Hire. Train. Retain.
Keep speed and quality in view.
Start with the departments view and sourcing results. Review vacancies, hiring time and retention alongside channel spend and cost per retained hire. Then carry the evidence into a position decision and follow-up.
Speed and quality are objectives, not demonstrated improvements. Training completion records are available in code; a training-delivery platform is not. No agency outcome evaluation is supplied. This is not a government application portal.
Primary capabilities · available in code
See the departments. Compare the sources.
Sourcing and channel results
Record channel spend, applicants, qualified applicants, hires and retained hires. Compare cost per retained hire and hiring time. Rankings exclude channels with too few hires or an unknown retained-hire cost; results are descriptive, not proof a channel caused better retention.
Hire, train, retain follow-up
Keep dated candidate steps, sourced training completions and scheduled check-ins together with human-reviewed position decisions. Recording a completion or check-in does not demonstrate training quality or a retention effect.
A question before a conclusion
Keep the handoff in view.
Is the position waiting on funding, classification, eligibility or a named decision-maker? Establish the local evidence before choosing a response.
Which position needs attention?
Enter a position description, department, external identifier and state to save an agency-scoped case. Review what is known, what is missing and who can resolve it. Assign an owner, backup and review date while the case is editable.
Position screens are implemented; independent browser-task and agency acceptance remain unverified.
What changed? Who can act?
Review the position thread, owner and review date. Open state JOLTS evidence, attach versioned documents, add a proposal or reminder, and ask the source-cited coach beside the position. Records append rather than overwrite earlier decisions.
The position thread is implemented; independent browser-task and agency acceptance remain unverified. Stored records do not establish delegated approval authority. Source readings remain conditional, and statewide context is not a department finding.
What are you standing behind?
The review screen shows result, confidence, what could change it, typed name and an authenticated verification path. Follow with a reminder and a separately recorded outcome.
The review screen is implemented; independent browser-task and agency acceptance remain unverified. A typed name is not independent verification of legal delegation, automated hiring or spending authority.
A recorded next action is not a filled position. Follow-up must say what actually happened, when, according to which source, and what still needs review.
Different responsibilities. A shared question.
For the team around the position.
These are stakeholder needs to investigate with your agency—not findings about your staff. The proposed position experience must respect each person's authority and minimum necessary access.
Department heads & supervisors
The question: Is a coverage problem waiting on a refill decision or something else?
What you would see: the position identifier, coverage constraint, missing approval, next owner, fallback and review date—not just an aggregate staffing total.
HR & civil service
The question: Is the wait required by a rule, or caused by missing information?
What you would see: applicable classification and eligibility references, dated hiring steps, exceptions and the proposed next action. Merit requirements remain human responsibilities.
Finance & budget
The question: Does an authorized seat actually have funded authority to recruit?
What you would see: a position reference and attached funding conditions for review. Authorized, funded and approved to recruit must remain distinct; no automated finance connection is claimed.
Executives & council
The question: What policy or budget choice is blocking service capacity?
What you see: audience-projected briefs, with the council view withholding private free text and person-level details. HR/finance reviewers retain scoped decision context. Agency approval of the projection is not established.
Clear about the boundary
What is available today—and what is not.
Implementation review: . Available means present in inspected code, not independently accepted or proven effective.
Departments, sources and decisions
- Agency-scoped departments view, sourcing/channel results, referral records and training completions with source labels.
- Start / Watch / Commit cases with enforced state transitions, current-version checks, delegation-gated typed-name confirmation and append-only records. Proposed actions can be compared, submitted for review and returned for revision.
- Reminders, outcomes, conditional live state JOLTS evidence on the case and authenticated confirmation verification.
- Audience-projected HTML/CSV briefs; council-only immutable public snapshots with expiry/revocation. Position and HR/finance links require sign-in.
- Versioned PDF, DOCX, XLSX, CSV, TXT and MD attachments. Text is available only for TXT, MD and CSV; no OCR.
- Selectable Perplexity or Anthropic coach proposals, or explicitly labeled rule-based guidance; history and consent-controlled memory. Missing provider credentials return an unavailable response, not an AI answer.
- Department/candidate CSV imports, imported OEWS wage lookup, conditional USAJOBS searches, Census geographic references and shared evidence labels.
Available in inspected code, not independently accepted or proven effective. Provider success depends on configuration. Read the delivery boundaries.
Authority and outcomes still need proof
- Agency acceptance and independent verification of recorded delegation sources.
- Automatic ATS, finance or HRIS connections; consent-checked candidate messaging.
- Independently accepted causal outcome evaluation and assessed prediction quality. Pilot recording exists; effectiveness is not established.
- Procurement acceptance and measured usability through the U5 evaluation gate.
- MFA enforcement and OCR for scanned documents.
Implemented features are not evidence of adoption. No completed agency position example or improvement claim is supplied.
Available today · in code
Connect the supporting workforce records.
These capabilities are implemented, not evidence of adoption or effectiveness. Each reported measure retains its source, date, method and limits; no agency figures are supplied on this page.
Provision and report
A trusted platform owner can provision agencies, accounts and initial delegations through the agency console. Agency admins can issue and revoke agency-scoped reporting tokens.
The reporting API provides department, channel, referral, aggregate check-in, pilot and position-case reads. Power BI connection instructions exist; Desktop and Service refresh still require verification in your environment.
Track hiring and support
Record sourcing channels and referrals, positions and candidates, dated hiring-step changes and elapsed stage timing. Channel cost per retained hire uses recorded spend and retained hires; referral cost remains unknown because referral spend is not collected.
Record scheduled check-ins at 30, 90, 180 and 365 days, and review the next uncompleted check-in due list. Reconcile actual start dates before interpreting due dates or retention.
Compare carefully
Register pilot trials with decision rules before recording effects, uncertainty and evidence labels. These are agency-entered estimates, not independently verified causal findings.
Import BLS OEWS wage records and look up occupation/area matches with reference dates and evidence labels. This is an imported wage reference, not an automatic live pay feed or a local compensation decision.
Source review : src/routes/provision.js, src/routes/reporting.js, src/routes/workforce.js, src/routes/market.js and docs/reporting-powerbi.md. Read the workflow and reporting limits →
Evidence, not success theater
What can you inspect today?
Checks with a boundary
Test evidence is loading. If unavailable, request the dated test run during evaluation.
Source: repository test runner, merged-tree baseline reported before this public-site reconciliation. Tests do not demonstrate live-provider success, security certification or agency outcomes.
Sources with a scope
BLS state labor-turnover reference supplies state context, not a department diagnosis. Publication date varies at this rolling URL; reference reviewed .
USAJOBS API documentation describes federal postings, not local vacancies. Publication date not supplied; reference reviewed .
Labels before conclusions
Observed is not independently verified. Modeled is not measured. Illustration is not permission to invent agency figures. Missing-source states are shown explicitly. CSV imports reject rows missing required measures rather than filling defaults; source periods and owners stay with the original evidence.
Census geographic reference files describe geography, not agency participation. Publication date varies by file; reference reviewed .
Perplexity-cited coach proposals require human review; a citation does not establish correctness.
Minimum necessary information
Review the work.
Not a private life.
We never ask for SSNs, medical or psychological detail, investigative findings, criminal history, student or client records, or unneeded candidate contact details.
Individual risk scoring is disabled. Do not submit excluded information in a CSV, attachment or coach question. Review the security boundaries →
Agency evaluation
Bring a real question.
Agree the evidence first.
An evaluation should identify an agency sponsor, a permitted position, the responsible HR and finance reviewers, a source owner and an outcome-check plan. Do not send personnel records before an approved data-handling arrangement.
Evaluation requirements
Request an evaluation: mr.terryflood@gmail.com. State your agency, the position you want to review and who the HR and finance reviewers will be.
Review the approach →