The matrix is useful when its categories describe the strength of available evidence rather than the candidate's worth, and every positive classification points to an artifact the candidate can defend.
Define categories before reading the candidate corpus
Mark strong when one or more inspectable artifacts directly demonstrate the requested capability and the candidate's contribution. Mark weak when the evidence is adjacent, partial, old, or dependent on inference. Mark missing when no supplied artifact or bounded recollection supports the dimension. Mark unverifiable when the candidate asserts relevant work but cannot disclose, cite, or corroborate it responsibly.
These labels describe evidence available for one role, not a permanent judgment about the person. A dimension can move from weak to strong when a better artifact is found. Missing knowledge should not be reclassified because another strength seems transferable. Conversely, a nonstandard project should not be discounted merely because it lacks a familiar employer name if the artifact directly demonstrates the work.
Record contribution and outcome separately
For each source, state what the artifact shows, what the candidate personally did, what result is directly recorded, and what remains inferred. A repository can demonstrate implementation but may not establish who chose the architecture. A presentation can show communication but may not prove adoption. A metrics claim needs a traceable record and scope, not a precise number reconstructed from memory for rhetorical effect.
MIT career guidance recommends describing skills through specific experiences rather than listing unsupported qualities. Use concise verbs and concrete objects only after the source check. If a claim depends on a team result, name the candidate's contribution without taking ownership of the entire outcome. If confidentiality prevents a useful citation, the matrix should identify a disclosure-safe description or mark the claim unverifiable.
Translate the classification into permitted wording
A strong row may support a resume bullet, portfolio pointer, or interview proof card. A weak row may support a narrower statement with a qualifying scope. A missing row belongs in the gap plan, not the resume. An unverifiable row needs candidate judgment about omission or a statement that can be supported without exposing restricted material. Keep the source beside every proposed phrase during review.
Reality Contact, LLC prepares this matrix through Role-Fit Evidence Pack. The candidate reviews every source and wording choice and retains sole control of applications and interviews. The classifications describe supplied evidence for ten agreed dimensions. They do not verify identity, employment, confidential work, references, credentials, or the employer's eventual assessment.
Where the service stops
Reality Contact, LLC prepares the evidence document but does not give employment advice, verify work history, contact employers, submit applications, invent achievements, impersonate candidates, or promise outcomes. The candidate confirms every fact and citation, chooses what to use, controls all communications, and personally applies and interviews. This is candidate document preparation; it does not replace professional legal, employment, immigration, credential, or career advice. We do not promise interviews, offers, employer interest, factual verification beyond supplied sources, or a favorable assessment of any evidence or gap.
Sources: MIT career guidance for writing about skills; MIT Communication Lab resume and CV guide.