Questions about ReLoop.me.

ReLoop.me is a Capability Intelligence platform. It reads CVs, professional histories, and job descriptions and turns them into structured decision briefs — calibrated interpretations of what a profile or a role actually signals to the market.

Two products are live: Profile Intel reads how your professional background lands — what archetype it maps to, where it's strongest, where it may be misread. Role Intel reads what a job description is genuinely asking for — stripping the wishlist language to expose the real demand, scope, seniority, and pay signal.

A third product, Profile × Role Intel, is in development. It will compare a profile and a role directly — the same intelligence, read from both sides simultaneously.

Yes, ReLoop.me uses AI to generate reports — but the output is not a raw model response. What you receive is the product of a proprietary methodology: a fixed vocabulary of archetypes, capability levels, and career patterns that were deliberately designed and calibrated, not inferred on the fly.

The difference matters because a general AI will describe your CV in whatever language seems plausible. ReLoop.me classifies it against a consistent schema — which means two profiles with similar backgrounds receive comparable, cross-referenceable output, not just two different plausible descriptions.

Structured, evidence-based intelligence about what people can do and what roles actually require — as distinct from credentials, titles, or years of experience.

Hiring has a signal problem. CVs are optimized for ATS filters, not for human understanding. Job descriptions are written to attract candidates, not to describe work. Capability Intelligence is the layer that reads through both to what's actually there.

None of the above. ReLoop.me is an intelligence layer — it reads and interprets, it doesn't place, advise, or list. No human on the other side is making a judgement call about you, and there is no recommendation to apply or not apply to a specific role. The brief is diagnostic, not prescriptive.

ReLoop.me was founded by Ligia Adam, a B2B tech marketing professional with 15+ years across cybersecurity, edtech, hardware, and energy — including enterprise analyst relations with Gartner and Forrester. The platform was built from direct experience with how non-linear careers get misread by hiring systems.

ReLoop.me is operated during its private beta by its founder (EU). Full legal details are in the Legal Notice. More about the vision is on the About page.

No. ReLoop.me is currently bootstrapped. That means the product decisions are driven by what actually serves users, not by growth metrics or investor timelines. We're building the data foundation first — if external capital makes sense later, it will accelerate a model that already works, not validate one that doesn't.

A structured brief that reads your professional background across several layers:

• Professional archetype — what operating mode your experience maps to most consistently
• Career pattern — the shape of your trajectory, read without bias toward linear progression
• Capability map — what you're strongest at and at what level, tied to evidence from your CV
• Transferability signal — how portable your background is across sectors, functions, and roles
• Pay signal — a calibrated salary anchor, EU Pay Directive-aligned
• Screening flags — where your profile may be misread, and what's genuinely missing vs. just undocumented

The brief is a private, shareable link. You can send it to a hiring team, attach it to an application, or keep it for your own reference.

A structural read of a job description — what the role is genuinely asking for, independent of how it's been written:

• Role X-Ray — the real weekly work, stripped of positioning language and wishlist traits
• JD inflation score — how far the posting overstates itself, and why
• Role archetype and leans — where the role sits on builder/operator, specialist/generalist, IC/manager axes
• Capability demand map — what it genuinely needs, classed as non-negotiable, nice-to-have, or match-blocker
• Transferability read — how portable the role is across non-linear backgrounds
• Pay signal — a calibrated likely offer and recommended ask, EU Pay Directive-aligned
• Next steps — for hiring managers: JD fixes and ideal profile. For candidates: where to focus, where to step back.

Not yet — but this is exactly where ReLoop.me is heading. Profile Intel and Role Intel are currently separate products by design: they read the same intelligence from opposite sides without cross-contaminating the analysis.

Profile × Role Intel, in development, will be the direct comparison — your profile read against a specific role. It's the only product in the suite that makes that match explicit, with gap analysis, negotiation leverage, and a direct fit read.

Profile Intel — use it to understand how you're being read before you apply, to anchor a salary negotiation, to brief a hiring team ahead of an interview, or to decide which roles to prioritize. You can share the link directly with a hiring manager or recruiter.

Role Intel — use it before applying (to understand what you're actually walking into), before posting (to fix JD inflation before the role goes live), or before negotiating (to anchor your ask against a calibrated market signal). Hiring managers use it to sharpen their briefs; candidates use it to decide whether the role is worth the energy.

The third product, currently in development. It takes a profile and a role and reads them against each other directly — where they match, where the gaps are, what the negotiation leverage looks like, and whether the application is worth the energy.

It's the only ReLoop.me product that makes a direct comparison. Profile Intel and Role Intel are deliberately kept separate — the same analytical intelligence, but from opposite incentive structures. The combined read only comes when you bring both sides together. No firm date yet; it will be available after the beta of the current two products is stable.

ReLoop.me classifies profiles and roles against a fixed vocabulary — deliberately closed, not open-ended. There are 7 profile archetypes and 7 career patterns, each with a precise definition.

We publish the category names but not the full definitions. The definitions are what make the classification non-replicable — they're the calibrated layer that gives the schema its value. You'll see your archetype and pattern in the brief with a full explanation of what it means for your specific background.

No. This is a foundational design decision, not a feature.

Non-linearity is never marked, flagged, or penalized in ReLoop.me's methodology. The career pattern vocabulary was specifically designed to describe the shape of a career without assigning value to linear progression. There is no "Returning" category, no "Career Gap" flag, and no negative weighting for sector switches, lateral moves, or non-traditional paths.

What gets flagged is undocumented evidence — gaps in what's on the CV relative to what's claimed. That's a signal problem, not a career structure problem. The read distinguishes between the two.

Any career that doesn't follow a straight line upward within one function or industry. That includes sector switches, lateral moves, freelance or portfolio periods, founding a company, pausing and returning, holding multiple roles simultaneously, or building expertise across different domains over time.

Non-linear careers are increasingly common — and increasingly misread by systems built for linear ones. ReLoop.me reads the capability pattern, not the trajectory shape.

AI-generated CVs and job descriptions share recognizable patterns: generic achievement language without specific evidence, ownership verbs without anchoring context, capability claims that float above the actual roles described, and a smoothness of language that doesn't match the specificity of the work.

ReLoop.me reads against evidence, not language. A claim only holds if the CV contains role-level context that supports it. Where claims exceed evidence, they're flagged — not as "AI-written" (that's not the point), but as unverifiable signal. The label is Verify or Gap, not a penalty. The same logic applies to job descriptions: ownership language without authority, requirements without evidence, and scope stacked under a single title are all inflation signals ReLoop.me names explicitly.

ReLoop.me reads what's submitted — it doesn't verify facts independently. What it does is flag where claims exceed the evidence present in the material: where outcomes are stated without context, where seniority is implied without supporting scope, or where skills are listed without a role to anchor them.

That's not the same as catching a lie — but it is the same signal a sharp interviewer or screener would notice. If the CV says one thing and the supporting evidence says another, that surfaces as a Verify or Gap flag. What the hiring team does with that is their call.

ReLoop.me uses five capability levels, applied consistently across both Profile Intel and Role Intel:

In Profile Intel, these describe what your CV evidences. In Role Intel, they describe what the role genuinely demands. The shared vocabulary is what makes a future direct comparison (Profile × Role Intel) meaningful — both sides speak the same language.

The three screening signal types in Profile Intel. Diagnostic observations, not prescriptions — the brief tells you what's there, not what to do about it.

• Verify — something that may be true but isn't documented. A screener could reasonably question it without evidence.
• Gap — something genuinely absent from the evidence. Not a career structure issue, but a documentation problem that limits how the profile is read externally.
• Misread — something that reads differently to an external screener than it likely reads to you. Usually a framing issue, not a capability issue.

When submitted material is thin, vague, or difficult to verify, ReLoop.me returns a compact report instead of fabricating signal that isn't there. A compact report is a responsible read of what's actually present — complete, but more limited in depth than a full report.

A compact report is a delivery, not a failure. It is not grounds for a refund. Submit more complete material for a fuller read.

From role family, seniority band, and location — not scraped from job boards. Two outputs: a likely market offer and a recommended anchor (what to ask for), both gross and net. The methodology is aligned with the EU Pay Transparency Directive (2023/970) — we flag when a job description lacks pay disclosure and calibrate against the transparency principle, not just market medians. Calibration tables are proprietary; we publish the figures, not the model. Confidence is labelled where the data is thin.

During private beta, ReLoop.me processes submissions primarily in English and Romanian. CVs or job descriptions in other EU languages can be submitted, but output quality may be lower — particularly on nuanced signal detection. The reports themselves are delivered in English regardless of submission language.

Broader language support is on the roadmap for post-beta.

Click "Get Profile Intel" or "Get Role Intel" on the relevant product page. Payment through Stripe — card only during beta. After payment you receive a submission link. Fill in the form with your CV or job description. Your report is generated once both payment and submission are received. No account, no login, no sign-up.

Normally within 24 hours of your completed submission — often significantly faster. If your material is complex or needs clarification, we'll reach out at the email used at checkout. You receive an email with a private report link.

Yes. The report is yours to use and share — with a hiring team, in an application, on LinkedIn. The link is private by default (not indexed), but anyone with the link can view it. The report is a candid read, including flags and signals that may be unflattering. Read it before you forward it.

Each report link stays live for up to 3 months from delivery. You can request earlier removal at any time by emailing hello@reloop.me — we action it promptly. Removal doesn't affect invoice records we must keep by law.

Yes, in specific circumstances — if the report wasn't delivered within 24 hours, arrived with a technical error that made it unreadable, or clearly failed to run. Full policy at reloop.me/delivery-refunds. We don't refund because you disagree with the read — a report is an objective interpretation of what you submitted.

Your submission is used to generate your report, then stored in accordance with our Privacy Policy. It passes through a pipeline of third-party services — Tally (form collection), Anthropic (AI processing), Airtable (storage), Brevo (email delivery), Stripe (payment) — all operating under GDPR-compliant data processing agreements. None of them are given rights over your data. Your data is not sold, shared with other users, or used to train AI models.

Yes, for the period needed to generate and support your report. Retention periods and your rights (access, correction, deletion) are detailed in the Privacy Policy. You can request deletion at any time by emailing hello@reloop.me.

Yes. ReLoop.me is built in the EU, for the EU. the founder, acting as data processor pending formal legal registration, is the data controller. You can request access, correction, or deletion of your data at any time at hello@reloop.me. Full details in the Privacy Policy.

No. Your report and submission are not used to train any AI model — ours or third-party providers'. Anthropic's API terms explicitly prohibit using API data for training without consent.

ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) filter CVs by keyword match against a job description. They look for title matches, specific terms, and formatting patterns — not for capability patterns or transferable evidence. A strong candidate with a non-linear background, a different job title, or a CV that doesn't repeat the exact JD language can be screened out before a human ever sees it.

ReLoop.me reads the capability underneath the title. That's the layer ATS systems consistently miss — and the gap that most non-linear professionals feel most acutely.

In principle, yes — and increasingly in practice. Large employers including IBM, Accenture, and many EU public sector organizations have publicly committed to removing degree requirements and shifting evaluation criteria toward demonstrated capability. LinkedIn's own research consistently shows skills-based hiring growing as a practice across industries.

In practice, most hiring still defaults to title, tenure, and keyword matching — because the tooling to operationalize skills-based decisions at scale doesn't exist yet. ReLoop.me is building part of that tooling: a structured vocabulary that makes capability comparable across profiles and roles.

Directly, no — compliance is an internal process that requires legal and HR work that goes well beyond a report. But ReLoop.me contributes to the conditions for compliance.

Role Intel flags when a job description lacks pay disclosure and provides a calibrated market benchmark for the role. That gives hiring teams a defensible, evidence-based starting point for setting and disclosing pay ranges — which is exactly what the Directive requires. It also names the structural gaps (title/scope mismatch, inflation) that make pay transparency harder to implement consistently.

The product works and you get a real report — but the system is still being refined. Report structures, section depth, and features may change. Occasionally outputs may be less complete than intended, particularly on edge-case inputs. During private beta, access is invite-only. When ReLoop.me opens publicly, pricing will be announced openly.

Yes, with a caveat on pay. The methodology and archetype classification work across geographies — a Builder is a Builder regardless of country. The pay signal is most reliable for Romania and Central/Eastern Europe. For Western EU markets and remote roles, it's directionally useful but less precise. Confidence is labelled accordingly.

Yes. The long-term vision is a two-sided marketplace — structured profiles and structured roles, searchable by the same vocabulary. A hiring manager would filter by archetype, capability level, and pattern — not keyword or title. Every Profile Intel and Role Intel brief adds to the structured dataset that makes this possible. We're targeting the marketplace phase after beta, once the data is clean and sufficient.

Email hello@reloop.me. During beta, feedback directly improves the product — we read all of it. If you think the read is wrong, tell us why: what you submitted, what the output said, and what doesn't hold. We won't change conclusions to preference, but we will investigate systematic errors.

It means the job description doesn't give enough structured information to read the role clearly — scope, authority, reporting line, or expectations are missing or contradictory. Low JD clarity is almost always a writing problem, not a role problem. The role may be perfectly well-designed internally; the posting just doesn't communicate it.

What it means for you: the brief will be honest about what it can and can't infer. Sections that depend on missing information are labelled as inferred, not invented.

Low role design means the role as written has structural problems — typically: too many competing priorities for one seat, scope that doesn't match the seniority level, authority implied but not granted, or a function that can't succeed without resources not mentioned. It's a signal about the role's viability, not necessarily about the company.

Companies with low role design scores sometimes have great cultures and bad job descriptions. The brief names the structural risk so you can ask the right questions — it's not a verdict on the employer.

Not necessarily lying — usually overclaiming. Role inflation happens when a job description uses senior language, ownership verbs, and broad scope to attract candidates, while the actual role is narrower, more junior, or less autonomous than advertised. It's the gap between what the posting signals and what the role actually is.

ReLoop.me names the specific inflation signals: scope stacked under one title, requirements without evidence, "strategic" framing on an execution role, or a "Head of" title with no team underneath. It's not a moral judgement — it's a structural read. What you do with that read is your call.

Scope mis-level means the work the role requires maps to a different seniority than the title suggests — usually Director-level scope inside a Senior IC title, or individual contributor work inside a management title. It's structural information, not an apply/pass verdict.

Knowing the mis-level is actually useful: it gives you negotiation leverage (the role is worth more than the title implies), it sets expectations (you'll be doing more than the title suggests), and it gives you a question to ask in the process ("how do you see this role evolving as the function scales?").

Lone function means the role is the only person in its function — no team, no peer, no handoff. Not inherently negative. For Builders and Specialists who energize around building from scratch, this is often the most meaningful kind of role. For Operators and Anchors who need infrastructure and process continuity to do their best work, it's a genuine risk signal.

The brief names it because it changes what success looks like in the first 90 days. It's context, not a warning.

Worth applying if you can prove — the role has a non-negotiable requirement you don't obviously meet from the JD read, but it's a bridgeable gap. The brief tells you exactly what evidence would close it.

Skip if — a hard structural mismatch between what the role requires and what a candidate profile could realistically offer. Not a judgement about you specifically — Role Intel reads the role, not your CV. The "skip if" signals are patterns that tend to create mismatches regardless of individual quality.

Because pay isn't a point — it's a band that shifts with experience depth, company size, negotiation, and equity structure. ReLoop.me gives you two anchors: a likely offer (what the market typically pays for this role as posted) and a recommended ask (what a well-positioned candidate should open with). The gap between them is your negotiation space.

A single number would imply false precision. The band is more honest and more useful.

From ReLoop.me's calibration model — role family, function, seniority band, company stage, and location, cross-referenced against EU market data. It's not a scrape of other job postings (those are often as misleading as the JD itself). It's a structured estimate built from the role's actual demand profile, not its advertised label.

Where the JD lacks pay disclosure, the brief flags the EU Pay Transparency Directive gap explicitly — that's structural information too. The company is not compliant with 2023/970 if they're hiring in the EU without pay disclosure.

No — and this is important to understand before reacting defensively. CV inflation: High means that the claims in your CV (titles, scope, outcomes) are not fully anchored by verifiable evidence in the same document. It's a signal about the CV as a document, not about your actual capability or honesty.

It's extremely common in profiles with large titles at small companies, broad scope without team context, or strong outcomes without the role detail that supports them. The fix is almost never "claim less" — it's "anchor better." The brief tells you exactly where the gaps are.

Because ReLoop.me calibrates from evidence, not titles. A CMO at a 5-person startup operates differently than a CMO at a 500-person company — the title is the same, the scope and team context are entirely different. If the CV doesn't document team size, budget, reporting structure, or organizational scope, the read can only work from what's there.

This isn't a downgrade of your career. It's the read an external screener would make from the same document. The fix is adding the structural context that makes the title legible — and the brief tells you exactly what's missing.

It means the achievement appears in your CV but lacks the surrounding context that would make it verifiable to an external reader — no role anchor, no scope, no timeframe, or no indication of your specific contribution vs. the team's. You know it's real. The brief can only read what's documented.

"Unsupported" is not an accusation. It's the same flag a thorough interviewer would raise. The fix is one sentence of context — and you won't have to explain it in an interview if it's already on the page.

Substantiated — the claim is present and the CV contains enough context to support it: the role, the scope, the outcome, and ideally the scale. A screener would have no reasonable grounds to challenge it.

Partial — the claim is there but the evidence is incomplete. The achievement is named but not anchored (missing the role context, the scale, your specific contribution, or a measurable outcome). It reads as plausible but not provable. One or two supporting details would move it to substantiated.

Email hello@reloop.me with your report link, the specific evaluation you're questioning, and why. We'll look at it. We won't change conclusions to preference — but if there's a genuine read error (the model misread your industry, misclassified a role, or missed something in the submission), we fix it.

In most cases, what feels like a wrong evaluation is a correct read of an incomplete document. The brief tells you exactly what's missing — adding it usually changes the read more than any contest would.

Yes — place a new order with the updated CV. Each report is generated fresh from the submission. There's no versioning or diff view yet, but you'll see a materially different read if the CV changes meaningfully. During beta, some users do exactly this to pressure-test specific changes before applying.

Yes, both. The brief is designed to travel — it's a structured read that gives a hiring team more signal than a CV alone. Sending it proactively positions you as someone who understands how their profile reads externally, which is itself a signal.

For interview prep: the flags section tells you exactly what a screener would probe. Preparing answers to those questions before the interview is more useful than generic prep. For salary negotiation: the pay signal gives you an evidence-based anchor with EU Directive context behind it.

Yes — and it's still useful. Even after applying, the brief helps you understand what the role is actually asking for before an interview, what questions to ask, what gaps to address, and how to anchor a salary conversation if you get to offer stage. The read is of the role, not of your application — it's relevant at any point in the process.

Yes. Every report is delivered as a live, shareable URL that is indexable by search engines and AI assistants — the link is yours to share, include in applications, or use publicly. The address is not listed anywhere by ReLoop.me itself; only people you share it with can find it that way. If you prefer not to have it indexed, contact us at hello@reloop.me.

You control who sees it. Don't share it if you don't want it seen.

No. Career gaps are not flagged, penalized, or named as a problem. ReLoop.me reads capability evidence — what's there, not what's absent in terms of time. A gap is only relevant if it means a claimed capability has no supporting evidence from any period. The gap itself is neutral.

It depends on what the CV documents. ReLoop.me reads capability patterns, not sector labels — a Builder is a Builder whether they built in tech, healthcare, or retail. If your pre-pivot and post-pivot roles show consistent underlying capabilities, the read will reflect that. If the pivot is recent and the new-sector evidence is thin, the transferability section will say so honestly.

The career patterns most relevant to pivots — Crossover and Multi-context — are read without negative weighting.

The read focuses on what you did, not who for. Anonymous clients are fine — what matters is the scope of work, the outcomes, and the capabilities demonstrated. Where client names would provide sector context that's missing, the brief may flag the capability as Verify rather than substantiated. Adding industry or scale context (e.g. "SaaS clients, 10–50 person companies") is usually enough to anchor it.

Carefully. A large title at a small company is one of the most commonly misread signals in hiring — it can mean genuine ownership and breadth, or it can mean a title with limited scope. ReLoop.me reads the scope documented in the CV, not the title. If the role description shows team size, budget, cross-functional reach, and outcomes, the read will reflect real seniority. If only the title is present, the read will be conservative — and the brief will tell you exactly what context to add.