Sanitize Sourcing Data Before Bot Apps Blow Up Your Funnel
A compliance-first operating model to stop fake profiles and bot applications from consuming recruiter capacity and creating audit exposure.
If your funnel accepts untrusted sourcing data without an identity gate and immutable logs, you are creating audit exposure on purpose.Back to all posts
Real Hiring Problem
Sanitize sourcing data at intake or you will burn cycle-time and lose audit defensibility later. Bot applications and fake profiles turn into SLA breaches, inconsistent decisions, and approvals you cannot reconstruct under legal scrutiny. Checkr reports 31% of hiring managers say they have interviewed a candidate who later turned out to be using a false identity. Pindrop reports 1 in 6 applicants to remote roles showed signs of fraud in one real-world hiring pipeline. For Compliance, that is an untrusted-input problem, not a recruiter annoyance.
Why legacy tools fail
Legacy hiring stacks treat integrity as a late-stage, sequential check. That creates waterfall workflows that spend interviewer time before identity is bounded and logged. They also fail basic audit mechanics: no immutable event log, no unified evidence packs, no policy versioning, no SLA-bound review queues, and no standardized rubric storage in the ATS. Shadow workflows and data silos do the rest.
Ownership and accountability matrix
Assign owners by control domain so you can answer audit questions with names, timestamps, and systems of record. Recruiting Ops owns the workflow and ATS data quality. Security owns identity policy, access control, and the manual review queue. Hiring Managers own rubric discipline and documented scoring. Analytics owns time-to-event dashboards and segmentation. ATS is the source of truth for status and decisions. Verification is the source of truth for identity outcomes and artifacts, with structured write-backs into the ATS. Interview and assessment tools must write back structured results to avoid evidence silos.
Automate dedupe, risk-tiering, triggers, and evidence pack assembly.
Manually review only escalations with defined thresholds, an SLA, and required reviewer notes.
Modern operating model
Implement a risk-tiered, instrumented workflow that gates access before interviews and assessments. The control objective is audit-ready decisions: who decided, based on what evidence, at what timestamp, under what policy version. Use event-based triggers with retries, idempotency keys, and reconciliation so verification attempts and merges are consistent. Capture evidence automatically and anchor it in the ATS. Track time-to-event distributions and SLA breakpoints, segmented by source channel and risk tier.
Retries with backoff for verification and scoring calls, with every attempt logged.
Idempotency keys to prevent double verification and inconsistent status flips.
Duplicate reconciliation that preserves prior evidence and creates merge events.
Where IntegrityLens fits
IntegrityLens enables intake sanitization by enforcing identity gating before access and by producing ATS-anchored evidence packs that are defensible under audit. It combines biometric identity verification (liveness, document authentication, face matching), fraud prevention signals (deepfake and proxy interview detection, behavioral signals), and an immutable event log with timestamped reviewer notes. Its zero-retention biometrics option supports minimizing sensitive data handling while still preserving pass-fail outcomes and timestamps. Typical end-to-end verification (document + voice + face) completes in 2-3 minutes, keeping step-up lanes from becoming bottlenecks.
Identity gate before access to interviews and assessments.
Unified evidence packs and tamper-resistant logs for audit narratives.
SLA-bound manual review queues with accountable reviewers.
Structured write-backs into the ATS to eliminate shadow workflows.
Risk dashboards that tie cycle-time to integrity signals.
Anti-patterns that make fraud worse
- Letting recruiters make integrity calls in Slack or email without a logged policy version, timestamps, and required rationale. - Running verification only after interviews, which burns scarce interviewer time before identity is bounded. - Treating bot filtering as a black box that auto-rejects without a review path, creating bias and defensibility risk.
Implementation runbook
Run a two-lane intake: low-risk fast path and risk-tiered step-up path with an SLA-bound manual review queue.
Intake normalization and dedupe (SLA: < 5 minutes). Owner: Recruiting Ops. Log apply_received, normalized_fields, dedupe_key, merge_event.
Automated screening (SLA: < 10 minutes). Owner: Recruiting Ops with Security thresholds. Log risk_score_generated, signals_observed, policy_version.
Route by risk tier (SLA: immediate). Owner: Security. Log route decision and verification_required.
Step-up identity verification before access (SLA: complete within 30 minutes of candidate start, auto-expire). Owner: Security. Log verify_start and results.
Manual review queue for escalations (SLA: 4 business hours). Owner: Security with Compliance oversight. Log reviewer assignment, review_complete, rationale.
Release to interviews and assessments (SLA: within 24 hours after verify-pass). Owner: Recruiting Ops. Log access_granted and scheduling events.
Rubric-based decisioning (SLA: within 48 hours of final interview). Owner: Hiring Manager. Log rubric submission and decision.
Monitoring and reconciliation (SLA: daily). Owner: Analytics. Log SLA breaches and anomalies.
Every gate decision references a policy version.
Every manual override includes reviewer identity and notes.
Every candidate status change is time-stamped in the ATS.
Every merge or dedupe action emits an event and preserves prior evidence.
Sources
Close: Implementation checklist
If you want to implement this tomorrow: - Publish a risk-tiered intake policy with step-up verification triggers before interviews and assessments. - Add ATS fields for integrity_risk_tier, integrity_gate_status, evidence_pack_id, policy_version, reviewer_id, and decision timestamps. - Stand up a Security-owned manual review queue with a 4 business hour SLA and mandatory notes. - Instrument time-to-event and monitor SLA breakpoints by source channel and risk tier. - Enforce idempotency and reconciliation to prevent duplicates and inconsistent outcomes. - Require evidence-based scoring and link decisions to evidence packs for audit readiness.
Related Resources
Key takeaways
- Treat inbound sourcing data like untrusted input. Gate access to interviews and assessments until identity risk is bounded and logged.
- Your control objective is audit defensibility: who decided, based on what evidence, at what timestamp, under what policy version.
- Parallelize automated signals and reserve manual review for escalations, with explicit SLAs and an immutable event log.
- Stop data silos by writing risk outcomes back to the ATS as structured fields, not screenshots in Slack.
A handoff-ready policy file that Recruiting Ops and Security can implement to dedupe candidates, assign risk tiers, trigger step-up verification, enforce review SLAs, and write back defensible fields into the ATS.
Designed to prevent shadow workflows by making the ATS the source of truth and by requiring immutable events for every integrity gate.
policyName: sourcing-intake-sanitization
policyVersion: "2026-02-07"
atsSourceOfTruth: true
idempotency:
keyFields: ["email", "phone", "resume_hash"]
mergeOnMatch: true
riskTiers:
low:
actions:
- allow_stage: "recruiter_screen"
- log_fields: ["source", "apply_timestamp", "dedupe_key"]
medium:
triggers:
- rule: "near_duplicate_resume_hash"
- rule: "burst_apply_pattern"
actions:
- require_step_up_verification: true
- allow_stage_after: "verify_pass"
- auto_expire_verification_after_minutes: 30
- log_fields: ["risk_signals", "policy_version", "verify_status"]
high:
triggers:
- rule: "document_auth_fail"
- rule: "liveness_fail"
- rule: "proxy_interview_signal"
actions:
- route_to_manual_review_queue: "security-review"
- review_sla_business_hours: 4
- require_reviewer_notes: true
- restrict_artifact_access:
access_duration_minutes: 60
default: "deny"
logging:
immutableEventLog: true
requiredEvents:
- apply_received
- risk_score_generated
- verification_required
- verify_start
- verify_pass_or_fail
- review_required_or_skipped
- decision_recorded
writeBackToATS:
fields:
- name: "integrity_risk_tier"
- name: "integrity_policy_version"
- name: "integrity_gate_status"
- name: "evidence_pack_id"
- name: "reviewer_id"
- name: "review_completed_timestamp"
compliance:
retention:
evidencePackDays: 365
biometrics:
zeroRetentionPreferred: true
storeOnly: ["pass_fail", "timestamps", "policy_version", "reviewer_notes"]Outcome proof: What changes
Before
Recruiting Ops spent significant time triaging duplicates and suspicious profiles. Integrity decisions were made inconsistently across teams, with evidence scattered across email and chat, creating audit narrative risk.
After
A risk-tiered intake policy gated interviews and assessments behind step-up verification for escalations. Decisions and overrides were written back into the ATS with timestamps, reviewer identity, and evidence pack references.
Implementation checklist
- Define a risk-tiered intake policy for bot and fake-profile signals with step-up verification triggers.
- Instrument the funnel with timestamps for apply, shortlist, verify-start, verify-pass, review-required, review-complete, interview-scheduled.
- Create an SLA-bound review queue owned by Security or Compliance for escalations, not recruiters.
- Require an evidence pack for any rejection or acceptance based on integrity signals.
- Reconcile duplicates and retries with idempotency keys so a candidate is not verified twice or rejected inconsistently.
- Write back outcomes and policy version into the ATS as the source of truth.
Questions we hear from teams
- What is a "bot application" in hiring operations?
- A bot application is an automated submission that creates candidate records at scale, often using scraped or synthetic data, which inflates funnel volume and drives SLA breaches and inconsistent screening decisions unless intake is instrumented and deduped.
- How do you stay defensible when you block suspicious profiles early?
- Make early-stage actions policy-based, logged, and reviewable. Store the risk tier, triggers hit, policy version, timestamps, and reviewer notes in the ATS, and ensure there is a manual review path for escalations to avoid black-box auto-rejection exposure.
- Where should identity verification sit if you want to reduce funnel clutter?
- Place identity gating before access to scarce steps like human interviews and paid assessments. Use step-up verification only for medium and high risk tiers so low-risk candidates keep moving under SLA.
- What evidence should Compliance expect to retrieve during an audit?
- For any integrity gate or override: who decided, at what timestamp, under what policy version, what signals triggered the action, what artifacts were accessed, and the final decision recorded in the ATS with an evidence pack reference.
Ready to secure your hiring pipeline?
Let IntegrityLens help you verify identity, stop proxy interviews, and standardize screening from first touch to final offer.
Watch IntegrityLens in action
See how IntegrityLens verifies identity, detects proxy interviewing, and standardizes screening with AI interviews and coding assessments.
