Hiring AI deserves a closer look.

We audit AI-enabled tools used to screen, assess, score, rank, match, or recommend candidates. This can include assessments, interview tools, sourcing and matching systems, and other automated hiring technologies. We confirm whether a tool is suitable for audit during scoping.

The scope depends on the tool and how it is used. It may include fairness and adverse impact, validity and job relevance, scoring and thresholds, transparency, documentation, psychological integrity, privacy, and candidate communication.

Both can matter. A tool’s design and supporting evidence are important, but outcomes can also depend on the roles, candidates, thresholds, and decisions involved in its use. We agree on the appropriate scope before the audit begins.

Depending on the scope, we may review product and technical documentation, validation evidence, information about the hiring process, and de-identified data on scores or outcomes. We confirm the exact inputs before work begins and agree confidentiality and data-handling arrangements in advance.

That is part of the purpose of an independent audit. We explain what the evidence shows, where limitations or risks remain, and what should be addressed. Recommendations may include gathering additional evidence, changing the tool or how it is used, or completing further review. Where a seal is part of the engagement, some findings may need to be addressed before it can be issued.

Most audits take approximately three to four weeks. Timing depends on the size of the project, data readiness, and access to documentation. We confirm the expected timeline during scoping.

Fees depend on the tool, the number of roles or use cases, the available evidence and data, the jurisdictions involved, and the agreed deliverables. After an initial conversation, we provide a clear scope, fee, and timeline before work begins.

We do not build or sell hiring technology. Our role is to examine the evidence, report what we find, and recommend what should be addressed. Clients remain responsible for implementing changes, and our findings do not depend on future work.

Often in part. Some analyses, such as comparisons of outcomes across groups, can inform several requirements. Documentation, notices, and publication requirements may differ by jurisdiction, so the engagement sets out which frameworks and deliverables are included.

That is common. During scoping, we establish what data exists, what a vendor can provide, and which analyses the available information can support. Where data is limited, the report clearly explains what we could and could not conclude.

They can. Some requirements depend on where candidates are located, where a role is based, or how a tool is used rather than where the organization is headquartered. We work remotely with clients internationally and can help define an audit scope around the relevant markets. Whether a specific law applies is a legal question that should be confirmed with qualified counsel.

No. An audit provides independent findings about the system, evidence, data, and use examined. It can support compliance and risk management, but it is not legal advice or a guarantee of compliance. Employers, agencies, and vendors retain their own legal responsibilities.

The seal confirms that a specific version of a hiring tool completed an independent Lingana audit. Its public record identifies what was audited and when. It does not mean that the tool is bias-free or guarantee compliance in every context. Each seal carries a unique ID that you can verify here.