An HR coordinator at a logistics company has 300 applications for warehouse supervisor roles and a shortlist due in three days. The company's recruitment policy states that every shortlisting decision must be made by a named recruiter. The hiring manager suggests asking Claude to rank the applicants and reject the bottom half automatically. What should the coordinator do?
- AUse Claude to summarise each application against the published criteria, and have the recruiter make every shortlisting decision Correct
- BLet Claude reject the bottom half, because the published criteria are objective and it applies them more consistently
- CAsk Claude to rank the applicants and write a reason for each rejection, then send the rejections as drafted
- DDrop Claude from the process entirely, since any use of AI in recruitment breaches the company's recruitment policy
Why A is correct: This uses Claude for what it suits, condensing 300 applications against the criteria so the recruiter can work faster, while the shortlisting decision about each person stays with the named recruiter as the policy requires.
Why B is wrong: Consistency sounds like fairness, and the deadline makes automation tempting. But a rejection is a decision about a person, the policy requires a named recruiter to make it, and Claude can misread or unevenly weigh applications in ways nobody would catch if no human looks.
Why C is wrong: Written reasons look like accountability, so this can feel more responsible than a bare ranking. Claude is still making the decision, the reasons are generated after the fact rather than checked, and no recruiter has decided anything as the policy requires.
Why D is wrong: Caution about AI in hiring is sensible, so stepping back can feel safe. But the policy governs who makes the decision, not whether a recruiter may use help to read applications, so abandoning Claude over-corrects and puts the deadline at risk for no gain.