Guide

Understanding Risk Scores

How we translate referee responses into a single, decision‑ready score—plus how to interpret it.

Signals considered

  • Consistency across referees and roles
  • Sentiment and strength of endorsements
  • Anomalies or red flags in timelines and claims
  • Completeness and specificity of examples

Score bands

  • Low risk: Strong, consistent endorsements with concrete examples.
  • Medium risk: Mixed endorsements or missing detail; consider follow‑ups.
  • High risk: Conflicting accounts or concerning signals; proceed with caution.

Improving signal quality

  • Ask for role‑specific examples and outcomes.
  • Request a balanced referee mix: manager, peer, and direct report.
  • Keep questions focused to reduce fatigue and boost completion rates.

Next steps

Ready to see scores in action? Run a reference check end‑to‑end.

Follow the full flow →
Risk Overview

Risk Assessment

3 references • Updated Sep 24, 01:53 PM

LOW
32%
Risk
3
Total
0
High
1
Moderate
2
Low

Strong consensus from referees on reliability and delivery. Examples cite ownership and collaboration.

Confidence: 82%
Overall low risk