Process Defensibility Review
Most organizations discover the weaknesses in a selection process at the worst possible moment, which is after a decision has been challenged. By then the documentation either exists or it does not, and there is no opportunity to create it.
A defensibility review examines an existing process before that point. It identifies where the process is exposed, what documentation is missing, and whether the outcomes it produces show patterns that would attract attention.
What the Review Examines
The review evaluates the process as it is actually operated, not as it is described on paper:
Adverse Impact Analysis
Selection rates by protected group at each stage, evaluated against the four-fifths rule and appropriate tests of statistical significance, with attention to the sequence as a whole.
Job Relatedness
Whether the content of the assessment traces back to a documented analysis of what the position requires, and whether that analysis is current.
Documentation Gap Assessment
A direct inventory of what exists against what the Uniform Guidelines expect from an organization defending the procedure.
Cut Score Justification
Whether the passing standard rests on documented judgment about required proficiency, or on convention, vacancy count, or historical practice.
Administration Consistency
Whether the process is applied uniformly in practice, including how exceptions, accommodations, and scoring disputes have been handled.
Findings and Priorities
A written report identifying exposures in order of seriousness, distinguishing what should be corrected immediately from what can be addressed on a longer schedule.
What You Get From It
An independent review delivers findings while remediation is still possible rather than during a proceeding when it is not.
An Honest Assessment
An independent view of where the process actually stands, which is difficult to obtain from the people who built or operate it.
Time to Correct
Findings delivered while remediation is still possible, rather than during a proceeding when it is not.
Prioritized Remediation
A clear sense of which exposures are serious and which are minor, so effort goes where it matters.
Documentation of Diligence
A record showing the organization examined its process proactively, which is itself relevant if the process is later challenged.
Where This Applies
After a Grievance or Complaint
Situations where a decision has been questioned and the organization needs an honest assessment of its position.
Before a High-Stakes Cycle
Review conducted while there is still time to correct problems, rather than after results are released.
Inherited Processes
Organizations relying on an assessment built by someone no longer available, where nobody currently understands the basis for how it works.
Related services & research
Explore related work and the published research behind our methods.
Concerned about an existing process?
An independent review identifies where a process is exposed while there is still time to address it.
Contact Us Today