notanATS

Screen candidates against your actual standards, not keywords.

Define what your team needs. NAA screens every applicant through structured conversations matched to your criteria. You interview the ones who fit. The screening runs without you.

Do any of these sound familiar?

Vote to see what others think

Recruiters screen with best intentions, but they can’t evaluate whether someone who migrated a payment system is stronger than someone who maintained one for a decade. That signal is invisible without domain experience.

Vote to see what others think

Every manager carries implicit criteria for each requirement. NAA makes you articulate them before screening starts.

Vote to see what others think

The role goes live. Applications arrive. Three candidates get rejected for three different reasons by three different people. Then someone asks what the team actually needs.

Vote to see what others think

A structured conversation that follows the thread of someone’s experience finds signal that keyword matching misses entirely.

Vote to see what others think

Does this person decompose problems the way your team does? Culture is how the team ships outcomes, not whether you’d grab a beer together.

Vote to see what others think

Why this requires AI

Not because AI is trendy. Because the alternative doesn't scale.

Consistency at scale

A junior screener skimming resumes at 4pm Friday does not probe the same way as at 9am Monday. NAA’s structured conversation evaluates the same requirements with the same depth whether it’s candidate 1 or candidate 500 — across any role, any company. Contextual matching doesn’t degrade.

Adaptive conversation

AI follows the thread of experience and probes depth. A script can’t do this. A junior screener can’t do this. When a candidate mentions migrating a payment system, AI asks how they scoped the unknowns. The conversation has to adapt to be useful.

Compounding calibration

Every conversation teaches NAA more about the manager’s actual standards. What patterns predict success on this team? Manual processes start from zero every hire. NAA gets sharper every round.

How it works

From calibration to interview in 4 steps

Today

With NAA

1

Define

Write a JD. Maybe review it with the team. Maybe not.

Describe what great looks like for each requirement in a conversation with NAA.

Technical Problem Solving — What should they know: distributed systems migration. Great looks like: mapped failure modes, ran shadow traffic, zero-downtime cutover.

2

Screen

Keywords filter + junior reviewer skims resumes.

NAA runs structured conversations with every applicant. Async, on their schedule. You are not involved.

You mentioned the payment migration had unknown failure modes. How did you scope what you didn’t know?

3

Match

HR manually reviews, coordinates schedules.

NAA scores each candidate against your criteria. High matches get booked into your calendar.

Technical Problem Solving — 4.2/5. Evidence: systematic risk mapping, incremental delivery.

4

Interview

Hope the candidate is relevant. Often not.

You only talk to candidates who already match what you defined.

Interview only the candidates who match what you defined.

Calibrate once. NAA screens everyone against it.

Weigh in on these too?