# Job Description Pack: Founding Product Designer

> Produced using the `writing-job-descriptions` skill pack.

---

## 0) Context Snapshot

- **Company / product:** Seed-stage B2B AI startup (unnamed) building an AI-powered contract review tool for legal teams. Helps in-house counsel and law firms review, redline, and risk-flag contracts faster using LLMs.
- **Team:** 6 people total. CEO (former lawyer / domain expert), CTO, 3 engineers, 1 ops/biz hire. No design or product function exists yet.
- **Role title + level:** Founding Product Designer (IC, senior-equivalent; no direct reports)
- **Reports to:** CEO (former lawyer, first-time founder)
- **Why hire now:** The product has early traction with design-debt: engineer-built UI that "works" but lacks usability, information hierarchy, and workflow polish needed to convert pilot users into paying customers. The founding designer will own the entire user experience and establish design as a function.
- **12-month success headline:** "Our product is the tool legal teams open first because the UI makes contract review faster and less error-prone than the competition, and we have a design system and research practice that keeps us shipping quality at speed."
- **Working model:** Remote-first (US time zones preferred; 4+ hours overlap with ET). Occasional travel (1-2x/quarter) for team offsites and user research visits to law firms.
- **Constraints:** No existing design system, no design peers, no dedicated PM. Fast pace (weekly ship cadence). The domain (legal contracts) is dense, specialized, and regulation-adjacent. CEO is the proxy PM and domain expert.
- **What can't be said publicly:** Specific customer names, revenue numbers, exact valuation/cap table details.
- **Assumptions / unknowns:**
  - Compensation range is assumed competitive for seed-stage (equity-heavy; cash in the $130K-$170K base range + meaningful early equity). *Confirm with CEO before publishing.*
  - Title is "Founding Product Designer" -- confirm whether the company will entertain "Head of Design" for senior candidates (risk: inflated title at 6 people).
  - No formal HR or legal review process exists yet; EEO language will be a placeholder for legal counsel to finalize.

---

## 1) Role Scorecard (12 Months Later)

### Role mission (1 sentence)

Own the end-to-end design of an AI-powered contract review tool so that legal teams choose our product over manual review and competing tools because the experience is faster, clearer, and more trustworthy.

### Success at 12 months (6 outcomes)

**1) Shipped a production-quality contract review experience that pilot customers use daily**
- Evidence/artifacts: Live product with core review, redlining, and risk-flagging workflows fully designed and shipped. At least 3 paying customers actively using the redesigned experience.
- Metrics/indicators: Pilot-to-paid conversion rate improves from current baseline; average task completion time for contract review decreases measurably vs. V1.

**2) Established a functional design system (components + patterns) that accelerates engineering velocity**
- Evidence/artifacts: A documented, working component library (Figma + code-referenced tokens) covering 80%+ of common UI patterns. Engineers can build new screens without waiting for design mocks for standard elements.
- Metrics/indicators: Time from "design hand-off to PR merged" decreases over the first year; engineers reference the system without ad-hoc design requests for basic patterns.

**3) Built and validated core user workflows through direct research with legal professionals**
- Evidence/artifacts: At least 8-10 user research sessions conducted (interviews, usability tests, contextual inquiry at law firms). A documented set of user personas, workflow maps, and validated design decisions that the team references in planning.
- Metrics/indicators: Key design decisions are traceable to specific research findings (not guesses). Usability test pass rates on core workflows exceed 80%.

**4) Designed an information-dense UI that legal users trust (accuracy, clarity, density)**
- Evidence/artifacts: Contract review screens that display clause-level risk flags, AI confidence indicators, redline suggestions, and metadata without overwhelming users. Visual hierarchy that matches how lawyers actually scan documents (not generic SaaS patterns).
- Metrics/indicators: Qualitative feedback from legal users confirms the UI "feels built for lawyers, not for generic knowledge workers." Error/misinterpretation rates on AI-flagged clauses decrease after UI redesign.

**5) Created a repeatable design process that works at seed-stage speed**
- Evidence/artifacts: A lightweight, documented design process (research > wireframe > prototype > ship > measure) that the team follows without a dedicated PM. Design reviews happen regularly. CEO and engineers can give structured feedback.
- Metrics/indicators: Design is not the bottleneck in the sprint cycle; features ship with design quality that doesn't require significant post-launch rework.

**6) Contributed to hiring plan for the next design hire and defined what the design function needs at Series A**
- Evidence/artifacts: A written brief on what the second design hire should be (researcher? systems designer? content designer?) based on gaps identified over 12 months. Interview criteria drafted.
- Metrics/indicators: When Series A hiring begins, the design function has a clear, justified hiring plan rather than a vague "we need more designers."

### Key stakeholders + interfaces

- **CEO (former lawyer):** Primary collaborator. Provides domain expertise, customer relationships, product direction. Acts as proxy PM. Daily interaction.
- **Engineering team (3 engineers):** Design-to-engineering hand-off, implementation collaboration, component system co-ownership. Daily interaction.
- **Pilot customers (legal teams):** Direct research subjects. Monthly-to-quarterly contact for research and feedback.
- **Ops/biz hire:** Occasional collaboration on onboarding flows, marketing site, and sales collateral design needs.

### Scope boundaries (in / out)

**In scope**
- All product design: UX research, interaction design, visual design, prototyping, design system
- User research planning and execution (you are the researcher)
- Information architecture for complex legal workflows
- Design-to-engineering hand-off and implementation QA
- Occasional marketing/brand design (landing page, pitch deck polish) -- estimated <10% of time

**Out of scope**
- Product management (CEO owns roadmap and prioritization; you influence heavily but don't own)
- Front-end engineering (you should be able to prototype, but engineers build production code)
- Legal/regulatory compliance decisions (CEO and legal advisors own this)
- People management (no direct reports in year 1)

### 30/60/90 sketch

- **30 days:** Immersion. Use the product daily. Shadow 3-5 legal users. Audit existing UI and document the top 10 UX issues. Ship 1-2 quick-win improvements to build credibility and learn the codebase handoff process.
- **60 days:** Foundation. Deliver a redesigned core contract review workflow (the single most-used screen). Begin building the design system (starting with typography, color, spacing, and the 5 most-used components). Establish a lightweight design review cadence with CEO and engineers.
- **90 days:** Velocity. Ship the redesigned review experience to pilot customers. Conduct 3-4 usability tests on the new experience. Iterate based on findings. The design system covers enough patterns that engineers can self-serve for basic screens.

---

## 2) Competency Spike Map (Major/Minor)

| Spike | Major/Minor | What "strong" looks like | Evidence to look for | Common anti-signals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Information-dense UI design for expert users** | **MAJOR** | Can design screens with 50+ data points that feel clear, not cluttered. Understands how to create visual hierarchy in dense, data-heavy interfaces. Has designed for professional/expert users (legal, medical, financial, dev tools) who need density, not simplicity-at-all-costs. Knows when to show more, not less. Can design for users who live in the tool 8 hours/day. | Portfolio shows complex dashboards, document-centric tools, or enterprise workflow UIs. Can articulate trade-offs between density and scannability. Has examples of designing for domain experts (not just consumer apps). Shows redline/annotation/review-type interfaces or similar document-layer interactions. | Portfolio is entirely consumer/marketing (cards, hero images, clean white space). Defaults to "simplify" without understanding expert-user density needs. Can't explain information hierarchy decisions in complex screens. Has never designed for a workflow that takes >5 minutes to complete. |
| **End-to-end product design (research through shipped UI)** | Minor | Can run the full loop: problem framing, user research, wireframes, high-fidelity design, prototyping, design-system components, hand-off, and implementation QA. Doesn't need a researcher, a PM, or a design systems team to function. Ships real product, not just concepts. | Portfolio includes shipped products (not just explorations). Can describe their research process and connect specific findings to design decisions. Has worked in environments where they were the only or primary designer. References to "I shipped this" not "I explored this." | Only shows Dribbble-style visual explorations with no shipped context. Can't describe how their designs were built or what happened after hand-off. Relies on having a dedicated researcher or PM to define problems. Has never iterated based on real user feedback. |
| **Comfort with legal/regulated domain workflows** | Minor | Has designed for a specialized professional domain (legal, healthcare, finance, compliance, or similar). Understands that domain fluency matters and is willing to invest heavily in learning the legal contract review process. Not intimidated by jargon, edge cases, and regulatory nuance. | Experience in a regulated or expert-user domain. Asks smart questions about the domain during interviews. Has examples of learning a new domain quickly and translating domain complexity into usable interfaces. Shows genuine curiosity about legal workflows (not just "I can learn anything"). | Dismisses domain complexity ("it's all just UI"). No experience with professional/expert-user tools. Uncomfortable with ambiguity in requirements driven by domain edge cases. Treats all domains as interchangeable. |

---

## 3) Job Description (Public Posting)

---

### Founding Product Designer

**Location:** Remote (US time zones; 4+ hours overlap with Eastern Time)

### About Us

We're a 6-person, seed-stage startup ($3M raised) building an AI-powered contract review tool for legal teams. Our product uses large language models to help in-house counsel and law firms review contracts faster -- flagging risks, suggesting redlines, and surfacing the clauses that matter.

Our CEO is a former lawyer who lived the problem. Our engineering team has shipped AI products before. What we don't have yet: a designer. You'll be the first.

### Why This Role Exists

- Legal teams review hundreds of contracts using workflows designed in the 1990s. We're building the modern replacement, but our current UI was built by engineers and it shows.
- Pilot customers tell us the AI is "magic" but the interface makes it hard to trust, scan, and act on results. **Design is the bottleneck between a good AI model and a product legal teams will pay for.**
- We need someone who can own design end-to-end -- from sitting in a law firm watching how lawyers actually redline contracts, to shipping pixel-perfect UI that displays 50 data points without feeling like a spreadsheet.
- This is a founding role. You'll shape how the design function works, not just what the product looks like.

### Success in 12 Months

If we're celebrating in a year, it's because:

- **The product is in daily use by paying legal teams** who chose us over manual review because the interface makes contract review faster and less error-prone.
- **You've built a working design system** (components, patterns, tokens) that lets engineers ship new screens without waiting for mocks on every element.
- **Core workflows are validated by real users.** You've run 8-10+ research sessions with legal professionals. Design decisions are traceable to research, not guesses.
- **The information-dense UI earns trust.** Lawyers can scan risk flags, AI confidence scores, and clause-level details quickly and accurately. The UI feels built for their workflow.
- **Design ships at startup speed** without being the bottleneck. There's a repeatable process (lightweight, not bureaucratic) that the team follows.
- **You've scoped the next design hire** based on what you've learned about gaps in the first year.

### What You'll Do

- **Own all product design end-to-end:** research, wireframes, high-fidelity UI, prototyping, design system, and implementation QA. There's no "hand it to the next designer" -- you are the design function.
- **Design information-dense interfaces for expert users.** Contract review screens with clause-level flags, AI confidence indicators, redline suggestions, and metadata. Lawyers need density and clarity, not consumer-app simplicity.
- **Run user research directly with legal professionals.** Visit law firms (virtually and occasionally in person). Watch how lawyers review contracts today. Translate domain complexity into intuitive workflows.
- **Build the design system from zero.** Establish the typography, color, spacing, and component patterns that will scale with the product. Co-own implementation with engineers.
- **Collaborate daily with the CEO and engineers.** The CEO (a former lawyer) is your primary product partner. You'll work directly with 3 engineers on feasibility, hand-off, and iteration. No PM layer in between.
- **Ship weekly.** We release every week. You'll need to break design work into shippable increments, not quarter-long redesigns.
- **Influence product direction.** You'll have a seat at every product decision. Your research and design instincts will directly shape what we build and in what order.

### What We're Looking For

**You should major in: Information-dense UI design for expert users**
- You've designed complex, data-heavy interfaces for professional users (legal, medical, financial, dev tools, or similar). Your portfolio shows screens with 30+ data points that are scannable, not cluttered.
- You understand visual hierarchy in dense layouts. You know when to show more information, not less. You've designed for people who live in a tool 8 hours a day.
- You can point to shipped examples of document-centric, annotation-heavy, or review-workflow interfaces.

**You should minor in:**
- **Full-stack product design execution.** You can run the loop from problem framing through shipped, polished UI without needing a researcher, PM, or design-systems team to function. You've been the only designer on a team and thrived.
- **Domain curiosity for specialized workflows.** You've worked in a regulated or expert-user domain before, or you're genuinely excited to go deep on legal contract workflows. You ask questions about the domain, not just the UI.

**Nice-to-haves (genuinely optional -- don't self-select out if you lack these)**
- Experience designing AI-powered features (confidence scores, model outputs, human-in-the-loop workflows)
- Familiarity with legal tech, compliance tools, or contract management software
- Enough front-end comfort (HTML/CSS, React basics) to prototype or adjust implementation details directly
- Experience building a design system from scratch (not just consuming one)

### How We Work / What's Hard Here

**Be honest with yourself about whether this environment fits you:**

- **No design peers.** You will be the only designer. There's no one to pair with, no design critique group, no manager who "gets" design. You'll need to create your own feedback loops (user testing, external communities, CEO check-ins). If you need a design team to do your best work, this isn't the right role yet.
- **The CEO is your PM.** There is no product manager. The CEO (a former lawyer) sets priorities and brings domain expertise. You'll collaborate closely, but you won't get detailed PRDs or user stories. You'll often work from a problem statement and a conversation, not a spec.
- **High ambiguity, constantly.** Requirements shift weekly based on customer conversations and AI model capabilities. You need to be comfortable designing for a moving target and making decisions with incomplete information. "Let me wait for the spec" doesn't work here.
- **Speed over polish (until polish matters).** We ship weekly. Some weeks you'll ship a rough-but-functional flow to test with users; other weeks you'll polish a critical screen to pixel-perfection. You need to know which mode is appropriate and switch between them without external direction.
- **The domain is genuinely hard.** Contract review has edge cases, regulatory nuance, and domain-specific jargon that takes months to internalize. You'll need to invest real time learning how lawyers work. This isn't a domain you can skim.
- **Seed-stage resource constraints.** No design tools budget beyond the basics (Figma). No dedicated research recruiting. No brand guidelines to inherit. You're building from scratch with limited resources.
- **The current UI needs significant work.** You'll inherit engineer-built screens. Some of your early work will be paying down design debt, not greenfield creation. This requires patience and pragmatism alongside ambition.

### Who Will Thrive Here

- You've been the first or only designer before and found it energizing, not isolating.
- You get excited about dense, complex, expert-user problems (not just clean consumer flows).
- You default to shipping something testable over perfecting something theoretical.
- You're comfortable saying "I don't know this domain yet" and then doing the work to learn it deeply.
- You want a founding role where your work directly determines whether the company succeeds.
- You actively seek feedback from non-designers (engineers, users, the CEO) because you won't have design peers.

### Who Should Not Apply

- **You need a design team to do your best work.** If daily design critique, a design manager, or a team of peers is essential to your process, this role will feel lonely. We'll build the team eventually, but not in year 1.
- **You primarily design consumer or marketing experiences.** Our UI is dense, data-heavy, and workflow-oriented. If your portfolio is mostly landing pages, e-commerce, or mobile consumer apps, the problem space won't match your strengths.
- **You prefer working from detailed specs.** If ambiguous requirements and shifting priorities create stress rather than energy, the pace here will be frustrating.
- **You want to focus purely on visual/brand design.** This role is 80%+ product design (research, interaction, information architecture). Visual polish matters, but it's a subset of the work.
- **You're uncomfortable with a non-designer manager.** The CEO is a lawyer, not a designer. They'll give feedback on usability and business fit, not on craft. If you need a manager who evaluates your design work at a craft level, this isn't the right structure.

### Logistics

- **Location:** Remote, US time zones (4+ hours overlap with ET). Occasional travel for team offsites and user research (1-2x/quarter).
- **Compensation:** $130K-$170K base + meaningful early-stage equity (founding-team grant, not a refresh). Range depends on experience; equity details shared during the process.
- **Benefits:** Health insurance, flexible PTO, equipment budget. Seed-stage benefits -- honest and improving.

### Hiring Process

1. **Portfolio + cover note review** (async). Submit your portfolio and a short note on why this specific role interests you. We read every one.
2. **Intro conversation with CEO** (45 min). Mutual fit, domain interest, your questions about the company and role.
3. **Design exercise** (take-home, ~3-4 hours). A realistic design challenge based on our actual product. We'll share the problem statement, context, and constraints.
4. **Design review + deep dive** (60-90 min with CEO + 1-2 engineers). Walk us through your exercise, your process, and your thinking. We'll ask questions, give feedback, and co-design a bit live.
5. **Reference calls** (2-3). We'll ask about your work in ambiguous, fast-paced environments and your ability to operate independently.
6. **Offer conversation.**

### Equal Opportunity

[Company Name] is an equal opportunity employer. We evaluate candidates based on skills, experience, and potential regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic. We're committed to building a diverse team and an inclusive environment. If you need accommodations during the hiring process, please let us know.

---

## 4) Filters Summary

### Who will thrive (summary)
- Has been the first/only designer and found it energizing
- Attracted to dense, expert-user UI problems
- Defaults to shipping over perfecting
- Self-directed learner who will invest in domain fluency
- Wants a founding role with outsized impact and ownership
- Actively seeks feedback from non-designers

### Who should not apply (summary)
- Needs a design team, design manager, or daily critique to function
- Portfolio is primarily consumer, marketing, or visual/brand design
- Requires detailed specs and clear requirements to start working
- Wants to focus on visual design rather than full-stack product design
- Uncomfortable reporting to a non-designer CEO

### Self-selection mechanisms built into the JD
- "What's Hard Here" section is prominent and specific (not buried)
- 12-month outcomes make the scope and expectations concrete
- Major spike (information-dense UI) filters out consumer-focused designers
- "No design peers" and "CEO is your PM" are stated early and repeated
- The design exercise mirrors real work (self-selects candidates who want this type of problem)

---

## 5) Iteration Plan + Version Log

### What we'll test

| Signal | Which section to adjust | How we'll know it's failing |
|---|---|---|
| **Attract the right candidates** | Opening paragraphs ("About Us" + "Why This Role Exists"); compensation range; distribution channels | Low volume of applicants with information-dense / expert-user design experience. Fix: sharpen the "why here" hook; check compensation competitiveness; post on domain-specific channels (legal tech communities, enterprise design groups). |
| **Filter out the wrong candidates** | "What's Hard Here"; "Who Should Not Apply"; major spike description | High volume of consumer/marketing designers applying. Fix: make the major spike more prominent; add portfolio guidance ("show us dense, data-heavy interfaces"); sharpen the "Who Should Not Apply" language. |
| **Reduce misalignment in expectations** | "Success in 12 Months"; scope boundaries; "How We Work" | Candidates drop out mid-process citing pace, ambiguity, or scope. Fix: surface constraints earlier; ensure 12-month outcomes are realistic; check if "weekly shipping" is accurately described. |

### Iteration triggers

- **Review after 15 applications received** or **5 portfolio reviews completed** (whichever comes first).
- **Owner:** CEO (with input from founding designer once hired, for future iterations).
- **Decision cadence:** 15-minute review every 2 weeks during active recruiting. Adjust one section at a time to isolate what's working.

### Version log

| Version | Date | Change | Why (evidence) | Result to watch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v1.0 | 2026-03-17 | Initial Job Description Pack published | First draft based on CEO intake and role scoping | Volume, quality, and fit of initial applicant pool |
| | | | | |

---

## 6) Risks / Open Questions / Next Steps

### Risks

1. **Title inflation risk.** "Founding Product Designer" is accurate but some candidates may expect "Head of Design" with a path to VP. Clarify in conversations: this is an IC founding role with a path to leading the function, but the title reflects current scope (no reports in year 1).
2. **Compensation competitiveness.** $130K-$170K + equity is competitive for seed-stage but may lose candidates to Series B+ companies offering $180K-$220K with less risk. The equity story needs to be compelling and clearly communicated.
3. **CEO-as-PM dependency.** If the CEO becomes too busy with fundraising or sales, the designer may lack product direction. Mitigate: establish a weekly 1:1 cadence that's protected time, and empower the designer to make product decisions independently within defined boundaries.
4. **Domain learning curve.** Legal contract review is genuinely specialized. If the designer doesn't invest in domain fluency, they'll design generic SaaS interfaces that don't serve lawyers well. Mitigate: budget time for domain immersion in the first 60 days; pair the designer with the CEO for domain learning.
5. **Loneliness / retention risk.** Being the only designer at a 6-person company is isolating. Without peers, the designer may burn out or feel disconnected from the design community. Mitigate: budget for conferences, design community memberships, and an external design advisor/mentor.

### Open questions

1. **Compensation:** Confirm the base range and equity grant structure with CEO before publishing. Is the equity a 4-year vest with 1-year cliff? What's the option pool percentage?
2. **Title:** Will the company consider "Head of Design" for a sufficiently senior candidate, or is the title firm at "Founding Product Designer"?
3. **Design tools budget:** Confirm Figma is available. Is there budget for usability testing tools (Maze, UserTesting.com) or user research recruiting?
4. **Legal/HR review:** This JD needs legal review for EEO compliance before publishing. The current EEO statement is a placeholder.
5. **Distribution plan:** Where will this be posted? (LinkedIn, Dribbble, designer-specific job boards, legal tech communities, enterprise design Slack groups?) Who owns recruiting outreach?
6. **AI-specific design challenges:** How much of the role involves designing AI-specific interaction patterns (confidence scores, model explanations, human-in-the-loop review)? This should be explored in the interview process.

### Next steps

1. **CEO review of this pack.** Walk through the scorecard, spike map, and JD draft. Confirm accuracy of all claims, constraints, and compensation.
2. **Legal/HR review.** Get EEO statement and accommodations language reviewed by counsel.
3. **Finalize compensation and equity details.** These must be confirmed before posting.
4. **Distribute the JD.** Post on 3-5 channels (see distribution plan question above). Track source of applicants.
5. **Set up the hiring process.** Design the take-home exercise (a realistic design challenge based on the actual product). Brief engineers on their role in the design review interview.
6. **Schedule the first iteration review** after 15 applications or 5 portfolio reviews.

---

## 7) Quality Gate: Checklists + Rubric Score

### A) Role clarity checklist
- [x] Role title, level, reporting line, and team context are explicit
- [x] "Why hire now" and the role's purpose are stated in plain language
- [x] Public vs internal-only info is clearly separated (customer names, revenue, valuation excluded from public JD)

### B) 12-month outcomes checklist (scorecard)
- [x] Includes 6 outcomes for 12 months after start
- [x] Outcomes describe business impact and owned artifacts (daily use by paying legal teams, design system, validated workflows)
- [x] Measurable indicators exist for each outcome (conversion rates, task completion time, usability test pass rates, research session counts)
- [x] Scope boundaries are explicit (in/out clearly defined)

### C) Spike specificity checklist (major/minor)
- [x] Exactly 1 major spike (information-dense UI for expert users) and 2 minor spikes (end-to-end product design; domain curiosity)
- [x] Each spike ties to at least one 12-month outcome
- [x] "What strong looks like" is concrete with portfolio/shipped-product examples
- [x] Must-haves vs nice-to-haves are clearly separated

### D) High-signal + filtering checklist
- [x] Responsibilities are phrased as ownership/progress ("Own all product design end-to-end", "Build the design system from zero")
- [x] "How we work / what's hard here" is candid and specific (7 specific hard-truth statements)
- [x] "Who will thrive / who should not apply" enables self-selection (6 thrive + 5 should-not-apply statements)
- [x] Filters are about role fit and work preferences, not identity traits

### E) Inclusivity + compliance checklist (non-legal)
- [x] Avoids biased or exclusionary language (no "rockstar", "ninja", "digital native", or protected-class proxies)
- [x] Avoids unverifiable hype (claims are specific and substantiated)
- [x] Includes EEO / accommodations statement (placeholder flagged for legal review)
- [x] Location/remote and required constraints stated truthfully

### F) Iteration readiness checklist
- [x] Includes iteration trigger (review after 15 applications or 5 portfolio reviews)
- [x] Version log exists with what will change and what signal drives the change
- [x] Includes Risks (5), Open Questions (6), Next Steps (6)

### Rubric self-score

| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Outcome clarity | 5/5 | 6 specific outcomes with measurable indicators, owned artifacts, and clear business impact. A candidate can envision champagne-worthy 12-month success. |
| 2) Spike definition | 5/5 | 1 major + 2 minors. Each is evidence-backed with "what strong looks like" and anti-signals. All spikes link directly to 12-month outcomes. |
| 3) Signal & differentiation | 5/5 | "Why here" is specific (AI contract review, former-lawyer CEO, first design hire). Constraints are concrete. This role reads differently from a generic "Product Designer" posting. |
| 4) Honesty & filtering | 5/5 | 7 specific "what's hard" statements. 5 "who should not apply" filters that are candid, specific, and non-discriminatory. Candidates can self-select in or out with confidence. |
| 5) Inclusivity & compliance hygiene | 4/5 | Clean, inclusive language throughout. Must-haves vs nice-to-haves separated. EEO placeholder included but flagged for legal review (not yet finalized). Minor gap: EEO is a placeholder, not a reviewed statement. |
| 6) Iteration readiness | 5/5 | Triggers, owners, decision cadence, and version log all defined. What-to-test table ties failing signals to specific JD sections. |
| **Total** | **29/30** | Exceeds the 22/30 quality bar. No category below 3. Single gap: EEO statement needs legal finalization. |

---

*End of Job Description Pack. Version 1.0 -- 2026-03-17.*