> "default to no" .. opposite of what you're suggesting. Not necessarily, just depends on how easy/hard you set the bar for disproving the hypothesis. It also

> "default to no" .. opposite of what you're suggesting. Not necessarily, just depends on how easy/hard you set the bar for disproving the hypothesis. It also is somewhat inherent in that you really are trying to disprove the hypothesis. On the other hand, if, after reading the résumé, I do not want to hire this person, why on earth should I go on to interview said person? The "default to no" part is, IMHO generally correct, because false positives are a lot more damaging/costly than false negatives. My perspective may be warped here, because I have worked for companies that get LOTS and LOTS of applicants. At some the team would screen hundreds of résumés a week, of which maybe 1-2 were somewhat interesting, and that was after the HR screen. Oh, and I also got to clean up after one of the candidates → colleagues I said no to and the rest of the team approved... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯