Priya received the BGV report for her top candidate at 4:47 PM on a Friday. Five checks completed. Three green. One amber on education — the university in Indore hadn’t responded in 16 days. One red on employment — the candidate claimed 3 years at a Pune-based company, but verification found only 18 months.
The hiring manager’s Slack message from 4:52 PM: “Can she start Monday?”
Priya has no framework. She makes a judgment call. Her colleague in the Chennai office got a similar report last month for a different candidate and made the opposite call. Neither knows about the other’s decision. When the company gets audited by their enterprise client next quarter, this inconsistency will become a finding.
Table of Contents
The Problem With Ad-Hoc Report Interpretation
Most Indian HR teams read BGV reports the way they read emails — quickly, reactively, and without a decision framework. This creates three risks: inconsistent decisions on identical fact patterns, legal vulnerability when a rejected candidate challenges, and talent loss when good candidates are held too long over minor issues.
The Decision Framework by Flag Type
Employment Discrepancies (Most Common, Most Nuanced)
Tenure mismatch of 1-3 months: Almost never disqualifying. Candidates approximate dates. “I joined in January” might mean January 15 or February 1. If the employer name and role match, document the minor variance and proceed.
Tenure mismatch of 6+ months: Investigate. This could be deliberate inflation (adding 6 months to meet a “minimum 3 years experience” requirement) or an honest error (confusing probation start with confirmed employment date). Give the candidate 5 business days to explain with supporting documents (offer letter, payslips). EPFO data can often resolve this instantly.
Fabricated employer (company doesn’t exist or candidate never worked there): Automatically disqualifying. No exceptions. This is not a memory error — it’s deliberate fraud. Initiate adverse action immediately.
Undisclosed concurrent employment: Evaluate against your employment policy. If your contract prohibits dual employment (as most Indian IT companies’ contracts do post-Wipro), this is a policy violation. Document and escalate to VP HR + Legal.
Education Discrepancies
Different graduation year (1-2 years off): Minor. Universities sometimes report different years for enrollment vs. convocation vs. degree certificate date. Not disqualifying unless the discrepancy creates a material false experience claim.
Different degree or institution: Material. Claiming an MBA from IIM Bangalore when the actual degree is a PGDM from an unrecognized institute in Noida is not a memory error. Disqualifying for any role where the specific credential was a hiring factor.
Completely fabricated degree: Automatically disqualifying. Zero tolerance. If a candidate fabricated a degree, everything else on their resume is suspect.
Criminal Record Findings
Active case (under investigation or trial): Do NOT automatically reject. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution enshrines equality before law, and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies. Evaluate: the nature of the charge (financial fraud vs. traffic accident), relevance to the role (a cheating case matters for a finance role, less for a warehouse role), and stage of proceedings. Consult Legal before making any decision.
Conviction for a relevant offense: Generally disqualifying when the offense is directly relevant — financial fraud conviction for a finance role, sexual offense conviction for a role with vulnerable population access, violent crime conviction for a customer-facing role.
Acquitted case: Cannot be used as a basis for rejection. An acquittal in Indian law (Section 232, CrPC / now BNSS) means the person is legally innocent. Using an acquitted case to reject a candidate exposes you to legal challenge and potential damages.
Minor offenses (traffic challans, petty violations): Not relevant for most roles. Rejecting a software developer because of a traffic challan in Koramangala is disproportionate and legally indefensible.
Address Verification Issues
Cannot verify (candidate moved): Not disqualifying. Ask for updated address and re-verify. This is a logistics issue, not a character issue.
Address doesn’t exist (wrong pin code, fabricated): Investigate further. Usually an error (wrong pin code, old address they forgot to update). Occasionally a genuine red flag (fabricated address to hide actual location — especially concerning for roles involving travel or customer visits).
The One-Page Decision Matrix
Print this. Pin it in every HRBP’s workspace. Use it during the Monday hiring review.
| Flag Type | Minor | Major | Critical |
| Employment tenure | 1-3 months off → Proceed, document | 6+ months off → Investigate 5 days | Fabricated employer → Reject |
| Education | Wrong year → Proceed | Wrong degree type → Investigate | Fake degree → Reject |
| Criminal | Traffic/petty → Proceed | Active case → Legal review | Relevant conviction → Reject |
| Address | Moved → Re-verify | Doesn’t exist → Investigate | N/A |
Action codes: Proceed = move forward, document the finding. Investigate = pause, give candidate 5 business days, consult Legal if criminal. Reject = initiate adverse action process per company policy.
What to Do With “Mixed” Reports
The most common real-world scenario isn’t “everything green” or “everything red.” It’s Priya’s scenario: mostly green, one amber, one concerning finding. For mixed reports:
1. Evaluate each finding independently using the matrix above
2. If any single finding is “Critical” → reject regardless of other greens
3. If all findings are “Minor” → proceed with documentation
4. If any finding is “Major” → investigate before proceeding, regardless of timeline pressure
The hiring manager’s deadline is not a valid reason to skip the investigation step. A 5-day delay is recoverable. A negligent hire is not.
SpringVerify’s reports classify discrepancies by severity level (minor/major/critical) and provide specific detail on what was claimed vs. what was found — enabling HR teams to apply this decision matrix immediately rather than interpreting raw data.
Key Takeaways:
•Build a printed decision matrix by flag type and severity — eliminate ad-hoc judgment
•Employment tenure mismatches under 3 months are almost never disqualifying; fabricated employers always are
•Acquitted criminal cases CANNOT be used to reject candidates — this is legally settled in Indian law
•For “mixed” reports: evaluate each finding independently, and any single Critical finding overrides all greens
•Pin the decision matrix where every HRBP can see it — consistency is your legal defense and audit survival tool
