Contact Bruce

01

Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

Automatic

02

Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

Automatic

03

AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

 

AI – Assisted

04

Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

 

AI – Assisted

05

A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

Human Decision

 

Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

 

—— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

WHAT IT DOES

Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

—— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

Who this conversation is useful for

Probably worth talking

     

      • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

      • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

      • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

    Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      01

      Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

      Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

      Automatic

      02

      Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

      Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

      Automatic

      03

      AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

      CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

       

      AI – Assisted

      04

      Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

      Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

       

      AI – Assisted

      05

      A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

      The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

      Human Decision

       

      Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

      We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

       

      —— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

      Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

      Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

      WHAT IT DOES

      Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

      It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

      WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

      It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

      A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

      —— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

      Who this conversation is useful for

      Probably worth talking

       

        • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

        • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

        • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

      Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      01

      Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

      Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

      Automatic

      02

      Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

      Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

      Automatic

      03

      AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

      CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

       

      AI – Assisted

      04

      Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

      Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

       

      AI – Assisted

      05

      A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

      The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

      Human Decision

       

      Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

      We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

       

      —— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

      Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

      Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

      WHAT IT DOES

      Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

      It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

      WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

      It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

      A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

      —— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

      Who this conversation is useful for

      Probably worth talking

       

        • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

        • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

        • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

      Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      —— THE COST OF MANUAL SCREENING

      The work looks fine from the outside. From the inside, it’s a lot of hours on things a computer can pre-sort.

      Every CV gets opened, read, and judged by a person

      Even the ones that were never going to pass a basic requirement.

      Recruiters chase details that were already asked for

      Licence, availability, location, shift preference — instead of reviewing candidates who actually cleared them.

      Screening speed sets how fast a role gets filled

      Good candidates can be lost to a faster-moving competitor while yours sits in a queue.

      None of this shows up as one big problem

      It shows up as a recruiter’s week being fuller than it should be.

       

      This started with a real labour-hire workflow, not a theoretical AI use case.

      “8020Green has enabled us to screen candidates faster, get the candidates we really want much quicker, and therefore we’re able to fill our job orders faster. Initially, I wasn’t sure how much time would be saved, but now we estimate that we’re probably saving at least 20 hours a week in screening time. If you’re looking for someone to help you with your business processes, I’d highly recommend 8020Green.”

      Simon Meade, Strategy One HR

      —— THE SYSTEM WE’VE BUILT

      AI groups candidates. Your recruiters decide.

      This is the actual sequence running in production today for a labour-hire client — not a concept. Rule-based checks and AI review handle the volume; a human recruiter makes every final call, and every decision is written back to the recruitment platform for a full audit trail.

      01

      Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

      Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

      Automatic

      02

      Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

      Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

      Automatic

      03

      AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

      CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

       

      AI – Assisted

      04

      Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

      Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

       

      AI – Assisted

      05

      A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

      The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

      Human Decision

       

      Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

      We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

       

      —— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

      Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

      Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

      WHAT IT DOES

      Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

      It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

      WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

      It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

      A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

      —— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

      Who this conversation is useful for

      Probably worth talking

       

        • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

        • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

        • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

      Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      —— THE COST OF MANUAL SCREENING

      The work looks fine from the outside. From the inside, it’s a lot of hours on things a computer can pre-sort.

      Every CV gets opened, read, and judged by a person

      Even the ones that were never going to pass a basic requirement.

      Recruiters chase details that were already asked for

      Licence, availability, location, shift preference — instead of reviewing candidates who actually cleared them.

      Screening speed sets how fast a role gets filled

      Good candidates can be lost to a faster-moving competitor while yours sits in a queue.

      None of this shows up as one big problem

      It shows up as a recruiter’s week being fuller than it should be.

       

      This started with a real labour-hire workflow, not a theoretical AI use case.

      “8020Green has enabled us to screen candidates faster, get the candidates we really want much quicker, and therefore we’re able to fill our job orders faster. Initially, I wasn’t sure how much time would be saved, but now we estimate that we’re probably saving at least 20 hours a week in screening time. If you’re looking for someone to help you with your business processes, I’d highly recommend 8020Green.”

      Simon Meade, Strategy One HR

      —— THE SYSTEM WE’VE BUILT

      AI groups candidates. Your recruiters decide.

      This is the actual sequence running in production today for a labour-hire client — not a concept. Rule-based checks and AI review handle the volume; a human recruiter makes every final call, and every decision is written back to the recruitment platform for a full audit trail.

      01

      Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

      Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

      Automatic

      02

      Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

      Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

      Automatic

      03

      AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

      CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

       

      AI – Assisted

      04

      Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

      Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

       

      AI – Assisted

      05

      A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

      The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

      Human Decision

       

      Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

      We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

       

      —— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

      Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

      Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

      WHAT IT DOES

      Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

      It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

      WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

      It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

      A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

      —— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

      Who this conversation is useful for

      Probably worth talking

       

        • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

        • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

        • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

      Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      —— THE COST OF MANUAL SCREENING

      The work looks fine from the outside. From the inside, it’s a lot of hours on things a computer can pre-sort.

      Every CV gets opened, read, and judged by a person

      Even the ones that were never going to pass a basic requirement.

      Recruiters chase details that were already asked for

      Licence, availability, location, shift preference — instead of reviewing candidates who actually cleared them.

      Screening speed sets how fast a role gets filled

      Good candidates can be lost to a faster-moving competitor while yours sits in a queue.

      None of this shows up as one big problem

      It shows up as a recruiter’s week being fuller than it should be.

       

      This started with a real labour-hire workflow, not a theoretical AI use case.

      “8020Green has enabled us to screen candidates faster, get the candidates we really want much quicker, and therefore we’re able to fill our job orders faster. Initially, I wasn’t sure how much time would be saved, but now we estimate that we’re probably saving at least 20 hours a week in screening time. If you’re looking for someone to help you with your business processes, I’d highly recommend 8020Green.”

      Simon Meade, Strategy One HR

      —— THE SYSTEM WE’VE BUILT

      AI groups candidates. Your recruiters decide.

      This is the actual sequence running in production today for a labour-hire client — not a concept. Rule-based checks and AI review handle the volume; a human recruiter makes every final call, and every decision is written back to the recruitment platform for a full audit trail.

      01

      Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

      Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

      Automatic

      02

      Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

      Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

      Automatic

      03

      AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

      CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

       

      AI – Assisted

      04

      Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

      Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

       

      AI – Assisted

      05

      A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

      The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

      Human Decision

       

      Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

      We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

       

      —— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

      Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

      Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

      WHAT IT DOES

      Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

      It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

      WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

      It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

      A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

      —— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

      Who this conversation is useful for

      Probably worth talking

       

        • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

        • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

        • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

      Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      Fill roles faster by grouping candidates before your recruiters review them.

      Let an AI-assisted system check CV content and screening responses against the role’s stated requirements, then group candidates by whether they appear to meet those requirements. Your recruiters review the results and make every final call.

      Book a 15 minute call

      —— THE COST OF MANUAL SCREENING

      The work looks fine from the outside. From the inside, it’s a lot of hours on things a computer can pre-sort.

      Every CV gets opened, read, and judged by a person

      Even the ones that were never going to pass a basic requirement.

      Recruiters chase details that were already asked for

      Licence, availability, location, shift preference — instead of reviewing candidates who actually cleared them.

      Screening speed sets how fast a role gets filled

      Good candidates can be lost to a faster-moving competitor while yours sits in a queue.

      None of this shows up as one big problem

      It shows up as a recruiter’s week being fuller than it should be.

       

      This started with a real labour-hire workflow, not a theoretical AI use case.

      “8020Green has enabled us to screen candidates faster, get the candidates we really want much quicker, and therefore we’re able to fill our job orders faster. Initially, I wasn’t sure how much time would be saved, but now we estimate that we’re probably saving at least 20 hours a week in screening time. If you’re looking for someone to help you with your business processes, I’d highly recommend 8020Green.”

      Simon Meade, Strategy One HR

      —— THE SYSTEM WE’VE BUILT

      AI groups candidates. Your recruiters decide.

      This is the actual sequence running in production today for a labour-hire client — not a concept. Rule-based checks and AI review handle the volume; a human recruiter makes every final call, and every decision is written back to the recruitment platform for a full audit trail.

      01

      Candidate applies and completes a short screening questionnaire

      Licence, transport, availability, shift preference — whatever the role actually needs to know.

      Automatic

      02

      Rule-based check against the role’s stated requirements

      Fast, consistent, and identical every time — no fatigue, no inconsistency between recruiters.

      Automatic

      03

      AI reads the CV against the role’s written criteria

      CVs are free text — a keyword filter can’t judge context. The AI reads for it, and groups any ambiguous case as appearing to meet the requirements rather than guessing a candidate out.

       

      AI – Assisted

      04

      Candidates are grouped by whether they appear to meet the role’s requirements

      Based on the information they’ve provided — their CV and questionnaire responses.

       

      AI – Assisted

      05

      A human recruiter reviews the groupings and decides

      The system’s role ends at grouping. Every progression, non-progression, and hiring decision stays with your team.

      Human Decision

       

      Why grouping, not automatic rejection?

      We group candidates rather than automatically rejecting them because recruitment decisions should stay with the organisation that owns the role, the criteria, and the legal responsibility for the hiring process. The system gives your recruiters a faster, more consistent first-pass view of who appears to meet the stated requirements — while every progression and non-progression decision stays in human hands.

       

      —— WHAT WE’D TELL YOU BEFORE YOU ASKED

      Where this helps today, and where it deliberately doesn’t go yet.

      Some of the sectors we’re talking to have real regulatory checks — police checks, working-with-children checks, vaccination status, professional registration. We’d rather be specific about this now than have it come up as a surprise later.

      WHAT IT DOES

      Reads what a candidate tells you, faster and more consistently

      It checks questionnaire answers and CV content against the role’s written criteria — the same information a recruiter would check by hand, just done without the manual triage. Nothing gets silently rejected on an ambiguous case; it’s built to default to passing a candidate through to a person rather than guessing them.

      WHAT IT DOESN’T DO – YET

      It doesn’t verify anything against an external register

      A candidate’s WWCC, police check or vaccination status can be captured and flagged as self-declared — the same way a licence claim is handled today. Confirming any of it against an actual registry is a separate, larger piece of work, and we won’t imply otherwise in how we scope it with you.

      —— IS THIS WORTH 15 MINUTES

      Who this conversation is useful for

      Probably worth talking

       

        • You place candidates into shift or roster-based roles at volume

        • Recruiters spend hours a week on CV review and basic-detail chasing

        • You want to know what’s realistic before committing to anything

      Probably not yet

       

        • You place a handful of candidates a month, not a steady volume

        • Screening already feels fast and well-resourced

      Tell us how your team screens candidates today

      15 minutes, no pitch deck. We’re speaking with a small number of labour-hire businesses to understand whether the same workflow pressure exists in their recruitment process — and we won’t assume your process is the same as the one we’ve already built for.
      .

      Book a 15 minute call

      Scroll to Top
      Scroll to Top