HOBA Methodology
How hoba decomposes hiring uncertainty, enforces explicit evidence levels, and prevents false certainty.
Core Design Rule
"hoba must make uncertainty more explicit, not merely replace one unsupported story with another."
An observation is not a cause. A rejection message is not necessarily a reason. A compatible mechanism is not a proven mechanism.
The Four Epistemic Verbs
All claims in HOBA must strictly use one of four calibrated verbs:
Directly present in empirical evidence or submission logs (e.g. rejection email timestamp, job post URL).
The mechanism could logically produce the observation given the structural gate. No probability implied.
Empirical research or secondary signals raise confidence beyond mere logical compatibility.
Direct verification supports the precise causal claim rendered (e.g. verified ATS parsing regex).
Preservation of Honest Baselines
A credible registry cannot become an echo chamber that blames external factors for every outcome. Genuine skill-depth shortfalls, communication friction, and leveling mismatches are first-class, mandatory baseline mechanisms in the ontology (honest_baseline: true).
Explicit Non-Goals
hoba is explicitly NOT:
- A company or recruiter blacklist;
- A "ghost job" accusation engine;
- A personal rejection diary or doom tracker;
- A coaching service promising employment outcomes;
- A legal discrimination determination tool.