--- title: "Candidate Submission Template for Recruiters" description: "A candidate submission template that labels every claim as stated, verified, or unknown, so your client trusts the shortlist and books the interview." url: "https://www.leonar.app/blog/candidate-submission-template/" lang: "en" image: "https://www.leonar.app/og/blog/candidate-submission-template-en.png" tokens: 4858 --- 1. [Home](https://www.leonar.app/) 2. [Blog](https://www.leonar.app/blog/) 3. [Staffing](https://www.leonar.app/blog/category/staffing/) 4. Candidate Submission Template: The Recruiter's Evidence Pack Staffing September 23, 2026 9 min read # Candidate Submission Template: The Recruiter's Evidence Pack A candidate submission template that labels every claim as stated, verified, or unknown, so your client trusts the shortlist and books the interview. [![Pierre-Alexis Ardon](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/pierre-alexis-ardon.ByBiMn-t_1eJ10c.webp)](https://www.leonar.app/authors/pierre-alexis-ardon/) [Pierre-Alexis Ardon](https://www.leonar.app/authors/pierre-alexis-ardon/) Co-founder Updated September 23, 2026 ![Adrien Tedjirian](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/adrien-tedjirian.BbnmZr4f_18wWaF.webp) ![Dolihane Feddag](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/dolihane-feddag.DkmcuiI8_uRaLP.webp) ![Louis de Froment](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/louis-de-froment.Y5ImtxTq_28zrXp.webp) Trusted by 400+ recruiting agencies 4.9 Rated on G2 ![Agency recruiter candidate submission template with an evidence ledger and unknowns field](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/candidate-submission-template.Y5nZ6bql_Zd3DX9.webp) Ready to take action? Discover Leonar in a few minutes. [See pricing](https://www.leonar.app/pricing/) - 7-day free trial - Full feature access - Cancel anytime Summarize with AI Choose an AI [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com/?q=Summarize%20this%20article%20about%20recruiting%20from%20Leonar%3A%20) [Perplexity](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/new?q=Summarize%20this%20article%20about%20recruiting%20from%20Leonar%3A%20) [Claude](https://claude.ai/new?q=Summarize%20this%20article%20about%20recruiting%20from%20Leonar%3A%20) [Mistral](https://chat.mistral.ai/chat?q=Summarize%20this%20article%20about%20recruiting%20from%20Leonar%3A%20) Table of contents - [Why a candidate submission can get a slow “we’ll think about it”](#why-a-candidate-submission-can-get-a-slow-well-think-about-it) - [The one rule that makes a submission credible: label how you know](#the-one-rule-that-makes-a-submission-credible-label-how-you-know) - [The candidate submission template, field by field](#the-candidate-submission-template-field-by-field) - [A worked example: the “Northwind” fictional mandate](#a-worked-example-the-northwind-fictional-mandate) - [The candidate approval checkpoint before you hit send](#the-candidate-approval-checkpoint-before-you-hit-send) - [Your pre-send handoff checklist](#your-pre-send-handoff-checklist) - [Where the template lives after you build it](#where-the-template-lives-after-you-build-it) An agency recruiter lives and dies by the shortlist. You can source the perfect person, but if your submission reads like a wall of confident adjectives, the client stalls. They cannot tell which claims you checked and which ones the candidate simply told you. So they hedge. You get the slow “we’ll think about it” instead of an interview slot. This guide fixes that. It gives you a reusable candidate submission template built around one idea. Every claim you make carries a label showing how you know it. That small discipline is what separates a shortlist a client trusts from one they quietly ignore. The worksheet is vendor-neutral. You can run it on paper, in a doc, or inside your recruiting workflow. It assumes the mandate is already agreed, so this is not about winning the client. It is about presenting a real candidate against a brief you both signed off. ## Why a candidate submission can get a slow “we’ll think about it” A submission can stall when it mixes proven facts with hopeful ones and presents them in the same confident voice. The candidate “led a large team.” Did they, or did they say they did? The candidate is “a strong cultural fit.” Based on what? A busy hiring manager may not have time to audit every claim. If everything sounds equally certain, they may ask for a call to check the details, or delay a decision. Either way, the submission has left work for the client. The fix is not more polish. It is honesty about your sources. When a client can see that three claims are verified, two came from the candidate, and one is still open, they can make a decision with their eyes open. That is what a shortlist is for. ## The one rule that makes a submission credible: label how you know Before you write a single line, agree with yourself on four labels. Every fact in the pack gets exactly one. The first is **candidate-stated**. This is what the person told you and you have not confirmed. It is not a lie, but it is not evidence either. The second is **recruiter-verified**. You checked this against a document, a reference, or a portfolio you saw yourself. The third is **your interpretation**. This is your professional read, owned as a judgement. An example is why you think they will thrive in this team. The fourth is **unknown**. This is the fact you could not close, written down instead of hidden. Give unknowns their own field. Without a clear place for gaps, an unverified claim can read like a confirmed fact. A dedicated field helps you show the client what still needs checking. ## The candidate submission template, field by field Copy the blank worksheet below for each candidate. Repeat the criteria and unknowns lines as needed. Keep it to one page where you can. ``` CANDIDATE SUBMISSION Client: [client] Role: [role / mandate] Candidate: [name] Submitted: [date] Consultant: [name and contact] RECOMMENDATION I recommend [candidate] for [interview / next step] because [specific fit against the agreed brief]. This is my interpretation, based on [evidence]. FIT AGAINST AGREED CRITERIA Criterion 1: [must-have from the brief] Evidence: [specific example or finding] Label: [candidate-stated / recruiter-verified / my interpretation / unknown] Source or check still needed: [document, reference, or follow-up] Criterion 2: [must-have from the brief] Evidence: [specific example or finding] Label: [candidate-stated / recruiter-verified / my interpretation / unknown] Source or check still needed: [document, reference, or follow-up] COMPENSATION AND LOGISTICS Current package: [amount / not shared] | Label: [label] | Source: [source] Expected package: [amount / range] | Label: [label] | Source: [source] Notice period: [period] | Label: [label] | Source: [source] Location and work pattern: [details] | Label: [label] | Source: [source] Travel, visa, or relocation: [details / not applicable] | Label: [label] Source or check still needed: [source or follow-up] UNKNOWNS TO RESOLVE 1. [Open question] | Who will check: [name] | By when: [date] 2. [Open question or "None after checks"] | Who: [name] | By: [date] REFERENCES Status: [taken / pending / not available] Reference and scope: [name / role or "pending candidate permission"] What it confirmed: [fact and label, or "not yet checked"] CANDIDATE APPROVAL Facts confirmed with candidate: [yes / pending] | Date: [date] Approval to submit to this client: [yes / pending] | Date: [date] Record of approval: [where the confirmation is kept] NEXT STEP [Specific action requested from client, owner, and proposed date or time] ``` The labels mean candidate-stated, recruiter-verified, your interpretation, or unknown. Use “unknown” when a check is still open; do not mark a claim verified until you have checked it. Keep the filled example below separate from your own submission. **Header.** Record the client and role, the candidate name, the submission date, and the consultant sending it. This ties the pack to a specific mandate so nothing floats free. **The one-line recommendation.** In a single sentence, say why this person deserves an interview against this brief. Write it as a judgement, not a promise. “I recommend an interview because her turnaround of a similar team maps directly onto your first-year goal” beats “perfect candidate.” **Fit against the agreed criteria.** This is the heart of the pack, and it is where the evidence ledger lives. List the must-have criteria from the brief. For each one, write the evidence, its label, and the source or next check. **Compensation, notice, and logistics.** State the current and expected package, the notice period, the location and work pattern, and any visa or relocation facts. Label each one. Salary expectations are almost always candidate-stated, and saying so protects you if the number moves. **The gaps and unknowns field.** Write the two or three things you have not confirmed. Maybe you have not seen proof of a certification. Maybe the reason for leaving the last role is still vague. Naming these lets the client decide which checks matter before an interview. **References, approval, and next step.** Note which references you took and what they confirmed, without copying private detail you have no right to share. Record when the candidate confirmed the facts and approved submission to this client. Then end with one clear action: “Available for a first call Thursday or Friday. Shall I hold a slot?” ## A worked example: the “Northwind” fictional mandate Here is the template in use. Everything below is invented to show the method. Northwind Robotics, the candidate, and every detail are fictional. Northwind Robotics has an agreed retained mandate for a Head of Revenue. The brief calls for eight years in B2B SaaS sales, direct team leadership, and someone who can lift a flat close rate. You are submitting a fictional candidate, “Dana Okafor.” Here is a sample evidence ledger for that fictional brief: | Criterion (from the brief) | Evidence | How I know | | --- | --- | --- | | 8+ years in B2B SaaS sales | Two named roles, 2018 to 2026 | Recruiter-verified (references) | | Managed a team of 10+ | "Led a team of 12" | Candidate-stated | | Comfortable with a 40% travel role | Open question at second call | Unknown | | Will raise the team's close rate | Prior turnaround suggests it | My interpretation | Your one-line recommendation reads: “I recommend a first interview. Dana rebuilt a stalled sales team at a similar-stage company, which is the exact problem Northwind described.” That is a judgement, owned as one. In the fit table, “eight years in B2B SaaS” is recruiter-verified, because two named employers confirmed the dates. “Rebuilt a stalled team” is candidate-stated for now. You have the story but not yet a reference who ran alongside her. “Will lift Northwind’s close rate” is clearly your interpretation, tied to the earlier turnaround. Under unknowns, you write two things plainly. Dana has not yet confirmed she can commit to the travel. And you have not seen the revenue figures behind her turnaround claim. Notice what this does. You have not fabricated a single credential or statistic. You have not inflated Dana. You have given Northwind a clear, honest map of a real person. That is a pack a client can act on. It is the opposite of an AI-written essay that reads well and proves nothing. If you want the machine to help earlier, that belongs at the [resume screening and parsing stage](https://www.leonar.app/blog/ai-resume-screening/). It does not belong in the recommendation, where your judgement is the product. ## The candidate approval checkpoint before you hit send Do not send the pack until the candidate has seen the facts and agreed to the submission. This is a short step with a large payoff. Read the key facts back to Dana. Confirm the salary number, the dates, the titles, and the reason she is open to a move. This catches the small errors that quietly wreck a submission, like a job title that was really “acting” or a start date off by a year. It also respects a basic principle. The candidate controls where their profile goes, and a client shortlist is a real place it is going. There is a selfish reason too. A candidate who approved the submission will not be caught off guard when the client calls. Nobody is surprised, nobody backtracks, and your credibility with both sides stays intact. Keep a quick note of when they agreed. That timestamp is worth more than it looks the day a detail is questioned. ## Your pre-send handoff checklist Before the pack leaves your outbox, run this short check. It maps the submission back to the mandate and catches the obvious misses. - Every must-have criterion from the brief has a line and a label. - Nothing is presented as verified unless you actually verified it. - The unknowns field is filled in, not empty and not hidden. - The candidate has confirmed the facts and approved the submission. - The compensation and notice details match what the candidate stated. - There is one clear next step and a date for the client to act on. If any line is blank, the pack is not ready. This is also the moment to sanity-check the brief itself. If the criteria feel fuzzy, the problem started earlier, and a tighter [recruiter intake meeting](https://www.leonar.app/blog/recruiter-intake-meeting/) is the real fix. A clean brief makes an honest submission far easier to write. ## Where the template lives after you build it The worksheet works anywhere, but a shortlist is easier to run when the record and the review sit in one place. Leonar holds your candidate records, notes, projects, and CVs, so the evidence behind each claim stays attached to the person rather than scattered across email. After you prepare and send the submission yourself, the [hiring manager portal](https://www.leonar.app/features/hiring-manager-portal/) can support the client review. You can give a stakeholder view or feedback access to that project’s pipeline. They can see the shared candidates and, with feedback access, submit candidate feedback. You still write and send the recommendation. Portal access logs record who was granted access and when. This fits two desks in particular. If you run confidential or retained searches, see how the workflow supports a [retained and executive search desk](https://www.leonar.app/for-executive-search/). If you run a mixed book, the same tools back a broader [agency recruiting workflow](https://www.leonar.app/for-agencies/). Choosing the right system for shared client feedback is its own decision, and our [test for evaluating an ATS for collaborative hiring](https://www.leonar.app/blog/ats-for-collaborative-hiring/) walks through the access and permission questions to ask before you buy. A strong submission is not the same job as winning the mandate in the first place, which leans on a [most placeable candidate approach](https://www.leonar.app/blog/most-placeable-candidate/) to open doors with new clients. This template is for the mandate you already hold. An evidence pack gives the client a clearer basis for deciding on an interview. When you want to see how the records and portal fit together, the [Leonar pricing page](https://www.leonar.app/pricing/) lays out the plans in full. ## Frequently asked questions ### What is a candidate submission template? It is a reusable worksheet an agency recruiter fills in for each candidate they send to a client. It records the mandate, the recommendation, and the evidence behind every claim about the person. A good template does one thing that a branded CV does not. It labels how you know each fact, so the client can tell a verified detail from something the candidate simply told you. That labelling is what turns a shortlist into a decision the client can trust. ### What should a candidate submission to a client include? Start with the mandate and the date, then a one-line recommendation. Add the fit against the agreed criteria, with each point marked as candidate-stated, recruiter-verified, your interpretation, or unknown. Include compensation, notice period, and logistics. Then add a short honest list of gaps you have not closed yet. Finish with references, candidate approval, and a clear next step. The unknowns section helps you flag a fact that is softer than it first looked. ### How do you present a candidate to a client without overselling? Separate what you observed from what you were told. Write your recommendation as a judgement, not a guarantee, and back each strength with a specific example rather than an adjective. If a claim is unverified, say so plainly. An explicit gap gives the client a question to resolve before deciding. It is more useful than presenting every line as a proven fact when some checks are still open. ### Should you get candidate approval before submitting to a client? Yes. Confirm the facts with the candidate and get their agreement before you send anything. This checkpoint catches errors in dates, titles, and salary, and it respects the candidate's control over where their profile goes. It also protects you. A candidate who approved the submission will not be blindsided when the client calls. Treat it as a short confirmation step, not a formality, and keep a note of when they said yes. Not sure which plan fits your team? Answer 3 quick questions and we will recommend the best option for your hiring workflow. How large is your recruiting team? What is your main challenge? Are you an agency or an in-house team? Your recommended plan [See pricing details](https://www.leonar.app/pricing/) staffing executive-search guides ![Pierre-Alexis Ardon](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/pierre-alexis-ardon.ByBiMn-t_2wY0oT.webp) Author [Pierre-Alexis Ardon](https://www.leonar.app/authors/pierre-alexis-ardon/) Co-founder Pierre-Alexis Ardon is co-founder of Leonar, where he focuses on building AI-powered recruiting systems, assisted sourcing, and search optimization. With a background in engineering and over 7 years working at the intersection of artificial intelligence and talent acquisition, he designs the algorithms that power Leonar's candidate matching and workflow assistance. Pierre-Alexis advises recruitment agencies on their digital transformation and regularly publishes analyses on how AI agents are reshaping HR workflows. He is passionate about making advanced technology accessible to recruiters who are not engineers. AI recruiting systems Sourcing automation Recruiting analytics AI agents for HR [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ardonpa/) ## Related articles - ![Agency recruiter intake meeting agenda, question bank, and client sign-off brief](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/recruiter-intake-meeting.C_dEE_mG_Z1IVdv.webp) Staffing ### [Recruiter Intake Meeting: Agenda, Questions, Sign-off](https://www.leonar.app/blog/recruiter-intake-meeting/) - ![Why executive searches fail and how to fix the most common challenges](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/why-executive-searches-fail.BgK0sSkp_ZApLv6.webp) Staffing ### [Why Executive Searches Fail (and How to Fix Them)](https://www.leonar.app/blog/why-executive-searches-fail/) - ![Executive search software features checklist for retained search firms](https://www.leonar.app/_astro/executive-search-ats-features.S_PxWDAr_IN8dF.webp) Staffing ### [Executive Search Software Features That Matter](https://www.leonar.app/blog/executive-search-ats-features/) ## Streamline your recruitment with AI & automation Join 400+ recruiting teams already using Leonar to source, engage and hire faster. 7-day free trial with full access 7-day free trial Full feature access Cancel anytime