If we assume that S = Passing the software screening stage A = Concise and short CV, made to be read by humans. B = Bloated and keyword-riddled CV, made to b

If we assume that S = Passing the software screening stage A = Concise and short CV, made to be read by humans. B = Bloated and keyword-riddled CV, made to be read by machines. I = successfully landing an interview To me, it seems that P(I | A) > P(I | A). That is, if a human reads CV "A", you have a greater probability of landing an interview, than using CV "B". But then, P(S | B) > P(S | A), because the screening software can filter out candidates that lack the correct keywords, etc. And in order to get to the interview stage, you need to pass the initial screening stage. You could have the best CV in the world, but if its rejected at step 0, then that doesn't help you. So it seems to me that its better to maximize your CV for S. This all of course assumed that there's no alternative ways around / bypassing the screening stage. I think the fundamental problem is that once a company crosse a certain threshold on the number of applicants, using humans goes out the window for the screening stage. 150 for one person seems tough, but what if the company gets 15000 applicants a month? And most of these are junk anyway?