How to change hiring criteria while a job post is live

Changing hiring criteria during a campaign is sometimes necessary. The role may have evolved, or early applications may reveal that a question does not produce the evidence you need. The risk is treating old and new reports as if they were produced under one standard. A fair change process records what changed, why, when it took effect, and which applicants were assessed under each version.

Before editing, decide whether the problem is the criterion, the question, or the review process. If you need to know whether a candidate has personally shipped work, rewriting the application question may be better than raising the minimum score for “ownership.” If the role has genuinely changed from general marketing to paid acquisition, a new criterion may be appropriate.

Classify the change

Changing a threshold because a particular candidate scored higher or lower than expected is a poor reason. Start from the work and apply the revised rule consistently. If you need legal advice on selection procedures, consult counsel for your jurisdiction. The EEOC guidance for US employers emphasizes job-related selection criteria.

Write a short change note

A change note can fit in six lines:

Role: Content and Operations Intern\ Effective date: 29 September 2026\ Old criterion: “Copywriting experience,” weight 1, minimum 2\ New criterion: “Audience-specific copy,” weight 2, minimum 3\ Reason: The actual role now owns paid-ad and landing-page copy each week.\ Treatment of earlier applicants: Human review of existing writing samples against the new description before comparing cohorts; no automatic reversal of prior communications.

The last line matters most. If ten people have already received an exercise invitation, a new threshold should not silently withdraw it. Decide whether to grandfather earlier progress, ask all affected candidates the same follow-up, or re-evaluate everyone under the new rubric. Each approach has trade-offs. The right one depends on the timing, impact, and your hiring policy. Record the choice before looking at individual names.

Compare evidence, not just totals

Suppose Candidate A scored 4 under rubric version 1 and Candidate B scored 3 under version 2. Without knowing the questions, evidence, weight, and anchors, this is not a meaningful ranking. Instead, build a comparison table with the criterion, version, source material, reviewer note, and any follow-up answer. If a criterion is new, mark it not assessed for the older applicant; do not convert that gap into a zero.

A calibration meeting can help when multiple reviewers are involved. Give each reviewer two old and two new applications without revealing automated recommendations. Compare evidence notes and resolve disagreement about what the criterion means. If the form did not ask for the new evidence, create a short, consistent follow-up for the affected group.

Candidate communication still matters

Candidates should not need to understand internal rubric versions, but they do need honest next steps. If a new requirement materially changes the role description, update the public post and consider notifying candidates already in process. Do not promise an assessment or interview based on a criterion you no longer intend to use. If you withdraw a stage, explain the change politely without attributing a process decision to the candidate's ability. See candidate email templates.

How Badal versions criteria

Badal lets a recruiter update criteria on a live campaign through the workspace or PATCH /api/campaigns/{id}. New evaluations use the latest criteria; older candidate reports retain the rubric version that produced them. A candidate's assessment specification is also captured when they apply, so later exercise edits do not silently change their private assignment. These version markers support an audit, but they do not choose a fairness policy for you. Badal's campaign documentation and the OpenAPI schema describe the current interface.

Before an agent edits the role, have it read the current campaign and show a diff: criterion name, description, weight, minimum, form question, and assessment change. Ask for recruiter approval of that exact diff. After the update, confirm the returned rubric version and inspect the public form. The rubric design guide explains how to write strong criterion descriptions in the first place.

Agent-ready change request

Read my active role and current rubric. Ask what changed in the actual job, then propose the smallest criteria or question update. Show a before-and-after table, likely impact on earlier candidates, and a treatment plan for people already in process. Do not edit the campaign until I approve the exact change. After saving, report the new version and verify that the public application still says what it should.

Quick audit checklist

• Is the new criterion tied to a real responsibility?
• Could applicants already in process reasonably have shown this evidence?
• Is a score comparison across versions being labeled accurately?
• Have existing invitations and candidate promises been accounted for?
• Does the role description still match the screen?

Versioning is a record of change. Fairness comes from making the reason and treatment explicit.

Frequently asked questions

Can I edit a live rubric in Badal?

Yes. Badal versions criterion changes, applies the new version to new evaluations, and retains earlier reports with their original version. Decide separately whether older candidates need a consistent follow-up or re-review.

When should I create a new job post instead?

Create a new post when the responsibilities, audience, or essential requirements have changed so much that an applicant to the original role would reasonably see a different job. A new post makes the candidate-facing promise clearer.