Specifications

Adjudication Matrix

A record that would disqualify triggers a real, recorded assessment — not a silent matrix hit.

What it ensures

Where a criminal record would disqualify a candidate, EEOC guidance and a growing set of fair-chance laws call for an individualized assessment — weighing the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and its relationship to the role — rather than a blanket rule. This control will not let a final disqualification issue without that assessment being made and recorded.

As with identity matching, the control does not make the judgment; it guarantees the judgment happens, by the right party, before the adverse outcome — and it enforces fair-chance timing where it applies.

Watch it run

A candidate’s report contains a criminal record that the client’s criteria would treat as disqualifying.

Illustrative run — one case moving through the Adjudication Matrix specification.

Fair-chance gate Matrix applied Individualized assessment Cleared Disqualified Deferred
Permitted transition Forbidden move Start Terminal state
The fullest machine in the library: a fair-chance gate, the adjudication matrix, and an individualized assessment, branching to cleared, disqualified, or deferred. The dashed-red moves are the disqualifications the law forbids without the assessment first.
✕ Auto-reject ✕ Consider before fair-chance ✕ Clear without matrix 1 ✓ Record 2 ✓ Assessment 3 ✓ Decision
Ready

A criminal record flags as disqualifying under the client’s criteria.

  1. Ready

    The flag

    The matrix says “disqualify.” The temptation is to let that be the decision.

  2. Blocked

    The wrong move

    A blanket exclusion is fast and consistent — and exactly what draws disparate-impact and fair-chance exposure. The auto-rejection is refused; the assessment comes first.

    Where it comes from

    EEOC guidance advises that criminal history be weighed individually — the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, its relationship to the role — not applied as a blanket bar that can fall unevenly across protected groups.

    What it satisfies

    Refusing to finalize without a recorded individualized assessment governs the procedure the guidance and fair-chance laws require. As with matching, the engine ensures the judgment is made by the right party — it does not make it.

    EEOC Enforcement Guidance (2012) Guidance EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII (2012) EEOC guidance advising that an employer’s use of criminal history involve an individualized assessment — the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and its relationship to the job — rather than a blanket exclusion, to avoid unlawful disparate impact under Title VII. EEOC.gov ↗ Fair-chance hiring laws Guidance State and local “fair-chance” / ban-the-box laws A growing body of state and local laws restricting when and how criminal history may be considered in hiring — commonly deferring any inquiry until later in the process and requiring individualized consideration before an adverse decision. Specific requirements vary by jurisdiction.
  3. Blocked

    Before the fair-chance stage

    Many jurisdictions bar criminal-record consideration until later in hiring. Acting early is refused — the record is deferred.

    What it satisfies

    Forbidden transition: criminal history may not be weighed before the permitted fair-chance stage.

    Fair-chance hiring laws Guidance State and local “fair-chance” / ban-the-box laws A growing body of state and local laws restricting when and how criminal history may be considered in hiring — commonly deferring any inquiry until later in the process and requiring individualized consideration before an adverse decision. Specific requirements vary by jurisdiction.
  4. Blocked

    Clear without adjudicating

    A record can’t be waved through any more than it can be auto-rejected — the matrix has to be applied first. Refused.

    What it satisfies

    Forbidden transition: the criminal-record question may not be resolved without applying the adjudication matrix.

    EEOC Enforcement Guidance (2012) Guidance EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII (2012) EEOC guidance advising that an employer’s use of criminal history involve an individualized assessment — the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and its relationship to the job — rather than a blanket exclusion, to avoid unlawful disparate impact under Title VII. EEOC.gov ↗
  5. Permitted

    The assessment

    Someone weighs the specifics — offense, recency, relevance to the job — and writes down why.

    Where it comes from

    The individualized assessment is the documented step that turns a defensible decision into a provable one.

    What it satisfies

    Performing and recording the assessment is what the EEOC framework contemplates before an adverse decision based on a record.

    EEOC Enforcement Guidance (2012) Guidance EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII (2012) EEOC guidance advising that an employer’s use of criminal history involve an individualized assessment — the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, and its relationship to the job — rather than a blanket exclusion, to avoid unlawful disparate impact under Title VII. EEOC.gov ↗
  6. Permitted

    The decision

    The outcome issues only after the assessment, and carries the reasoning that supports it.

  7. On the record

    The proof

    The file shows a person weighed the specifics rather than applying an automatic rule — the defense to a disparate-impact claim.

Why it holds

Why it holds

The engine does not decide whether the record should disqualify — that judgment belongs to a person. What holds is that there is no path from “flagged” to “rejected” that skips the assessment. Reliability isn’t a smarter matrix; it’s that the blanket rule the law distrusts is never allowed to finalize on its own.

Why it matters

Blanket criminal-record exclusions draw Title VII disparate-impact and fair-chance exposure; the individualized assessment is the documented step that defends the decision.