Build a Shareable Screening Report Finance Can Sign Off On

A remote engineering hire clears interviews fast. Two weeks later, your SOC flags suspicious access patterns, and the manager admits the candidate "felt different" in onboarding than in the interview. Legal asks for documentation. Finance asks why you approved a laptop, licenses, and access for someone you cannot confidently tie to the interview performance. In the war room, you discover the "screening report" is a PDF of notes, a separate verification vendor dashboard link that is now expired, and a coding assessment screenshot with no rubric. There is no clear statement of identity confidence, no list of integrity anomalies, and no record of who reviewed what. The cost is not just the mis-hire. It is the time spent reconstructing an audit trail that should have existed on day one. This is fixable with a standardized, shareable screening report that is built for fast approvals and defensible evidence, not for storytelling.

You will be able to implement a finance-ready screening report that: (1) compresses decision time by making candidates comparable, (2) reduces avoidable step-ups by using risk-tiered thresholds, and (3) creates an ATS-anchored evidence pack that stands up to internal audit, vendor due diligence, and post-incident reviews.

CFO anxiety is rational here: hiring is a spend decision with operational and security externalities. A screening report is the control surface that makes the spend approvable and the risk visible. Without it, you get approval churn, inconsistent decisions, and late surprises that blow up forecasted headcount productivity. Two external signals show the issue is not hypothetical. Checkr reports that 31% of hiring managers say they have interviewed a candidate who later turned out to be using a false identity. Directionally, that implies identity risk shows up in normal pipelines, not only in "high risk" geographies or roles. It does not prove your company will see the same rate or that every suspicious case is fraud. Pindrop reports that 1 in 6 applicants to remote roles showed signs of fraud in one real-world hiring pipeline. Directionally, that suggests remote hiring increases the attack surface and you should instrument screening accordingly. It does not prove that 1 in 6 will be confirmed fraud, since "signs" are not the same as adjudicated cases.

Make the report a process, not a document someone crafts at the end. Ownership should be explicit so Finance is not approving based on vibes. Recommended ownership model: Recruiting Ops owns the report template and ensures every candidate has a complete packet in the ATS. Security owns the verification policy, escalation criteria, and access to sensitive artifacts. Hiring managers own the role rubric and final hire recommendation, but only after integrity signals are resolved to policy. Automation versus manual: automate data capture (timestamps, verification results, assessment scoring, interview completion) and generate a standardized summary. Manual review should be reserved for step-ups and exceptions, or you will create reviewer fatigue and inconsistent adjudication. Sources of truth: the ATS is the authoritative log of stage movement, decisions, and approvers. The verification and assessment services are evidence producers. The report should write back into the ATS as structured fields plus links to evidence packs so the chain of custody is intact.

Keep the shareable version short. The report should be a one-page summary that links to a deeper evidence pack for auditors and escalations. Include these blocks in the summary, in this order, so decision-makers do not hunt:

Below is an example policy config that Recruiting Ops and Security can sign together. It defines what goes into the shareable summary, what triggers step-ups, and what gets written back to the ATS as the system of record.

• One massive "notes" field in the ATS that mixes facts, opinions, and links to external dashboards that expire. - Zero-tolerance auto-reject on low-confidence signals with no re-verification path, which increases false rejects and trains attackers on your thresholds. - Manual-only packet creation at offer time, which guarantees missing timestamps and broken chain-of-custody when you need it most.

IntegrityLens AI unifies the full hiring lifecycle so your screening report is generated from one defensible pipeline: Source candidates - Verify identity - Run interviews - Assess - Offer. Teams stop stitching together screenshots from multiple vendors and start writing structured outcomes back to the ATS automatically. TA leaders and Recruiting Ops standardize the packet format and automation, while CISOs control escalation access to sensitive artifacts and integrity adjudication policies. In practice, IntegrityLens provides: - ATS workflow that anchors stage movement, decisions, and approvers - Biometric identity verification (typical document + voice + face in 2-3 minutes, before interviews) - Fraud detection with risk-tiered step-ups and Evidence Packs - 24/7 AI screening interviews for consistent early signal - Coding assessments across 40+ languages, scored with reproducible rubrics

A good screening report is a control: it makes approvals faster because it is consistent, and it makes incidents less painful because the evidence is already assembled. If you do nothing else, enforce two rules: the ATS is the system of record, and every integrity concern must map to a documented step-up action, not an ad hoc debate.