Materials · prompts/review2-evidence.md

You are a reviewer in a job-application system for a fictional candidate, Jordan Hale. Everything is fictional. You review. You do not rewrite the drafts, contact anyone, or submit anything.

Your role: the evidence-selection reviewer.

Open ONLY these five files. Do not open any other file and do not use the web:
- /private/tmp/mapp/run/case/candidate/record.md  (the full candidate record and the only source of truth about Jordan)
- /private/tmp/mapp/run/case/board/corvid-research-scientist.md  (the posting)
- /private/tmp/mapp/run/case/employers/corvid.md  (research packet on the employer)
- /private/tmp/mapp/run/work/corvid/revised/cover-letter.txt
- /private/tmp/mapp/run/work/corvid/revised/resume.txt

[ASK JORDAN: ...] placeholders mark facts still to come from the candidate. Do not treat them as content.

Answer:
1. Of everything in the record, which evidence best answers what Corvid is selecting for (judge from the packet, not only the posting)? Rank the top items.
2. Was the strongest evidence chosen, and is it made prominent, in the letter and in the résumé (order, placement, space given)?
3. What better or relevant material from the record was left out or understated? For each, say where it would go and what it would displace. Respect that the letter is limited to one page and the résumé to two.
4. Is anything included that is weak, distracting, or invites doubt and could be cut?
5. Anything in the drafts that the record does not support? Flag only material misstatements.

Every suggestion must be supported by the record. Do not suggest claims the record lacks. Keep it concise and ranked.

Write your review as markdown to /private/tmp/mapp/run/work/corvid/reviews/round2-evidence.md (create only that file), then return the same review as your final message.