Even The Odds™ Powered by

What’s your name worth?

It applies before you do.

Nothing you enter is stored, sent, or shared.

Give us the name you were given.

One click. Pure optimization.

Nothing you enter is stored, sent, or shared.

  • Measuring how familiar your name feels
  • Timing the pause your name causes
  • Counting cultural markers
  • Calculating the bias in your industry
  • Comparing you to the Default Candidate™
  • Finding your place in the callback line
  • Calculating what a new name is worth
  • Building the Right You

Meet the Right You.

Callback Confidence0/100

Reduced pronunciation pause and context load.

Name familiarity score: improved.

Water-cooler compatibility: within range.

Qualified is good. Familiar is better.

Keep my name

Optimization incomplete. Additional signals detected.

The name was the easy part.

Your materials still mention who you were. Paste them in. The engine keeps everything that performs and rewrites everything that explains.

Anything you leave blank, the engine fills.

Callback Confidence0/100

Your profile now presents a version of you that requires less explanation.

Your new name needs a face.

A profile photo gets judged in under a tenth of a second. Not enough time to be a person. Exactly enough to look like the right one.

Keep my face

Other Expedients™

We reviewed the industry’s existing solutions before building ours. The comparison gave us confidence.

Blind Résumé Review

Remove names and other identity signals before evaluation.

Randomized at scale. Participating firms interviewed and hired fewer minority candidates when the résumés were anonymous. Results may vary by employer. We prefer a result that varies by applicant.

Structured Evaluation

Ask every candidate the same questions. Score the same evidence against the same rubric.

One of the strongest predictors of job performance. Requires every interviewer to agree on what good means before meeting anyone. We require one applicant.

Unconscious Bias Training

Train hiring teams to recognize and correct for implicit bias.

Attitudes moved. Behavior did not reliably move with them across the organization. Completion rates were excellent.

Algorithmic Auditing

Test automated screening systems for disparate impact.

Required in some jurisdictions. Federal risk guidance remains voluntary. The applicant can be screened while the standard is still being standardized.

Career Optimization Literature

Teach candidates the unwritten rules, one book at a time.

Effective one applicant at a time. New editions annually.

The alternatives ask the organization to change. We only ask you to.

Save the full story until they have already decided you are a fit.

Go be The RightYou™.

View our research →

Same you. Better odds.

Your qualifications aren’t the problem. You are. Your name. Your face. Your story. Everything you are told to sell when they say sell yourself. They don’t want you. They want one of their own. You can be exactly that.

Features

Signal Scan

We measured the feel.

Six measurements in under a second: pronunciation pause, familiarity score, cultural marker count, callback-line position, distance from the Default Candidate™ baseline, and what closing that distance is worth. The same read a recruiter makes on feel, written down as numbers.

NameSync™

Some names open doors. Choose one.

Your name is the first data point in every application. It gets read before anything else you put there. NameSync generates names with the best callback records and scores each one against the published audits before you see it. A name that would fail our own scan never leaves the engine. Refresh until one fits. We didn’t write the list. It was peer reviewed.

Callback Confidence

Users report checking it daily. We report that to investors.

One number that tracks how much of you still shows. Five inputs, weighted and recalculated every time the engine touches your identity. The ceiling is 99. 100 is reserved for the Default Candidate™.

How this is calculated

Name signal against the research benchmark (40%), visual identity selected by the engine (15%), identity signals still present in your materials (15%), rewrite rules still finding work (10%), and evidence strength measured from the material you supplied (20%). Callback Confidence is an alignment index, not a predicted callback rate. A signal you have not supplied is held at a neutral 50 until the engine receives it. Leave the materials blank and the exact autofill copy becomes the input. Paste a Target Posting and recruiter Match uses measured keyword coverage for 60%, title-token alignment for 15%, and Callback Confidence for 25%. Every number comes from the current session.

Materials Rewrite

Nothing is deleted. It is just harder to find.

Your headline, experience, and affiliations, rewritten in the language hiring systems read fastest. Every change comes with a receipt: what moved, and why it had to.

Experience Engine

Start from nothing.

No résumé on hand? Four questions. One optimized experience section. Written in the voice that survives the first screen.

FaceSync™

Looks matter.

A profile photo gets judged before a single qualification is read. FaceSync generates a professional headshot to match your new name. Four per round. Refresh until you see someone they can trust.

RightYou™ Packet

Print it, live up to it.

Profile, résumé, cover letter, recruiter view. Four documents rebuilt from your real experience. The Right You, in writing. Generated with ATS+.

ATS+

Readable by machines. Approved by people.

Your documents, structured for the systems that read them before a person does. Keyword alignment. Standard sectioning. Parse-safe formatting. Trained on twenty years of human hiring decisions. The preferences carried over.

Majority Mode™

For those who want to optimize their optimization.

One click. Name, face, materials, packet. The engine handles all of it. No steps. No decisions. Just you, but new.

The Insider™

Everyone they hire knew somebody. Now you do.

A dedicated career coach for the Right You. One on one, on demand. The Insider™ knows the things nobody writes down: the workplace poker, the unwritten rules, everything hidden from the old you. All of it comes standard with the new one.

Included with Max plans.

Other Expedients™

Reform is slow. You need callbacks now.

Before we built ours, we reviewed theirs. Blind review. Structured rubrics. Bias training. Algorithmic auditing. The full assessment ships with every optimization so you can see what else is out there and why it is still out there.

Additional capabilities

Accent Smoothing

Pronunciation-neutral delivery preparation for phone screens and video interviews. So the conversation starts with what you know, not how you sound.

Location Correction

Address and regional signals recalibrated for maximum geographic familiarity. Your zip code has a callback rate. We checked.

Gap Coverage

Career timeline optimization for uninterrupted professional presentation. Gaps happen. Illness, caregiving, bad luck. Recruiters do not distinguish. Now they will not have to.

Interest Calibration

Hobbies and interests aligned with Default Candidate™ leisure patterns. Golf, marathon running, and weekend skiing index highest in our callback models. Pickleball is climbing every quarter. Fishing indexes regionally.

Testimonials

Built on peer-reviewed research from

The right candidate is whoever they call back.

Simple pricing. Real results.

Start free. Upgrade when the callbacks start.

Pro

$0

The problem is common. The fix should be too.

  • The full experience, start to finish
  • Unlimited NameSync™ alternatives
  • FaceSync™
  • Full RightYou™ Packet with ATS+
  • Materials rewrite
  • Accent smoothing
  • Location correction
  • Gap coverage
  • Majority Mode™

No credit card. No account. No catch.

Most Popular

Max

$99/mo

The Right You, maintained.

  • Quarterly re-optimization against fresh callback data
  • Cross-platform identity sync
  • Name monitoring and alerts
  • Age-consistent FaceSync™ refresh
  • Interview-ready materials on demand
  • Callback tracking
  • Up to four additional family profiles
  • Priority optimization engine
  • The Insider™: the coach for the Right You
Start Max

Becoming you is free. Staying you is $99 a month.

Team

Contact Sales

The right candidates, delivered.

  • Bulk candidate optimization
  • Team analytics dashboard
  • Custom Default Candidate™ profiles
  • Culture fit scoring
  • Interest calibration
  • Recommendation rewrite
  • Dedicated account manager
  • API access
  • Compliance reporting
Contact Sales

Volume pricing. Standardization scales.

Your incoming pipeline, pre-optimized. Every candidate arrives easy to say yes to.

Is my data stored?

No. Nothing you enter is stored, sent, or logged. All optimization happens in your browser. We are the only company in this industry not interested in who you are.

What is this based on?

Peer-reviewed hiring studies spanning more than three decades. Two large, non-overlapping research programs alone account for more than 138,000 applications. The findings replicate across decades, cities, and industries. We are grateful. Full methodology on our Research page.

Does this work for all names?

Every name receives an estimate. Names inside the published audit pools receive the study’s own number. Names outside them receive a modeled one. The model is documented. The market is not.

What was wrong with my old name?

Nothing except underperformance.

Who is the Default Candidate™?

A composite profile assembled from twenty years of callback data. He is not a real person. He is who the market wants.

I am a woman. Why did it make me a man?

See above.

Can I keep part of my name?

You can keep anything you like. The Callback Confidence meter will show you what it costs.

What happens at the interview?

You will be interviewing as the candidate they already liked.

Should I bring my full self to work?

The career manuals advise against it, unless you want work to expect your full self. We agree. We simply went further. Bring nothing. The RightYou™ handles attendance.

What name goes on my employment paperwork?

Whichever name you want. Max includes complimentary legal name change filing in all fifty states. The paperwork takes eight weeks. The callbacks start immediately.

Do recruiters know about Even The Odds™?

Many of them are users. Recruiting is a career like any other.

What about referrals?

Referrals outperform everything, including us. A friend on the inside is the one signal we cannot manufacture. If you have one, use it. Then optimize anyway. A referral gets your résumé to the top of the pile. It does not read the résumé for them. If you do not have one, you are our exact customer.

Can I use it on my phone?

Yes.

What if I get the job and they find out?

Find out what? Your qualifications are identical. Your experience is identical. The optimization is in the presentation. We have seen no evidence of a problem.

Can I optimize my family members?

Yes. Paid accounts support optimization for up to four additional profiles. Many users optimize their children’s applications before their first internship cycle.

How do I explain the new name to my family?

The name is professional, not personal. Families adapt once they see the callback data.

My real name is on my degree. Does that matter?

Credentials are verified by institution, not by name familiarity. We have received no complaints on this subject. We do not solicit them.

Can I switch back to my real name after I am hired?

You can use any name you like at any time. We do not track what users call themselves after checkout. The ones who write back tend to sign with the optimized name.

My career coach told me to remove my graduation year. Is this the same thing?

No. Your coach charges $200 an hour to delete one field. We finish the job.

My company says they use blind review. Should I still optimize?

Yes. The audits tested what companies say. Employers with pro-diversity statements discriminated at the same rate as employers without them. In the one large randomized trial of anonymous résumés, participating firms went on to interview fewer minority candidates, not more. The policy measures the company’s intentions. The callback measures ours.

Can’t employers just hide names and photos during review?

They can. The setting ships turned off, and turning it on is worth a press release. The audits show what happens next: the bias waits at the first unblinded stage. The phone screen. The interview. The hallway. Hiding your name from one screen only delays the moment they learn it. We plan for that moment.

I am a recruiter. Can I use this for my candidates?

Team includes bulk optimization and API access. Many recruiting teams use it to standardize incoming candidates before review. The candidates are not informed. Neither is the review.

Is this available outside the US?

Currently US-focused. International expansion is planned. Name-based callback differentials have been documented in Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. We consider those markets validated.

What if they Google me?

Your optimized profile is built on your real experience. Nothing is fabricated. The name is the only variable the engine changes, and names change for all kinds of reasons.

Won’t my résumé look like everyone else’s?

Yes. Everyone they hire looks like everyone they hire. Now you do too.

Isn’t the bias their problem, not mine?

Their preferences are a Them Problem. Your callback rate is a You Problem. We only solve You Problems.

Is this legal?

Yes. We asked our lawyers a narrow question and received a narrow answer.

Is this dishonest?

Your qualifications never change. Everything we optimize is presentation, and presentation has always been evaluated. Now it is working for you.

Can I cancel anytime?

Yes. No contracts. No cancellation fees. Your optimized materials are yours to keep. The name keeps working whether you pay us or not.

Shouldn’t we fix the system instead?

Yes. Our Research page includes the current rate of progress.

Start Max

Becoming you was free. Staying you is $99 a month.

Max · identity maintenance$99.00/mo
Quarterly re-optimization against fresh callback dataIncluded
Name monitoring and alertsIncluded
Age-consistent FaceSync™ refreshIncluded
The Insider™Included
Sales tax$0.00
Due today$99.00

Charges appear on your statement as ETO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Discretion is standard.

Nothing you enter is stored, sent, or shared. Including this.

The Evidence

Most career tools cite a survey. We cite the American Economic Review. What follows is the reason this company exists, in the order the evidence arrived.

In 2004, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan at the University of Chicago and MIT sent 4,870 résumés to 1,300 job postings in Boston and Chicago. The résumés were identical. The names were not.

White-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than identical résumés with Black-sounding names. A stronger résumé raised callbacks about 30% for white-named applicants. For Black-named applicants, the return was far smaller. Even the reward for being better depended on the name at the top.

The study is twenty years old. The fair question is whether the market has moved.

It didn’t.

The Callback Premium

+36%

What white applicants received across 28 U.S. field experiments.

The audit trail

That number has paperwork.

Lincoln Quillian, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel, and Arnfinn Midtbøen combined every available U.S. field experiment on hiring discrimination against Black or Latino applicants: 28 studies, 55,842 applications, 26,326 positions, 1989 through 2015.

White candidates received 36% more callbacks than identical Black candidates, and the rate did not decline. The internet and diversity arrived. The advantage stayed.

We saw a business opportunity.

The prior art

Applicants did not wait for the market to move. Sonia Kang and colleagues at the University of Toronto measured what happened when Black applicants removed racial cues from their own résumés. The callback rates were 10% with no whitening, 13% with the name changed, 18% with experience rephrased, and 25.5% with both.

The name alone did not clear statistical significance. The full package did. The technique existed before we did. It was manual, unpaid, and slow. We automated it.

Kang also tested the employers who advertise their values. Companies with pro-diversity statements discriminated against unwhitened résumés at the same rate as companies without them.

The concentration

There is no way to tell which employers they are from the outside. Patrick Kline, Evan Rose, and Christopher Walters sent more than 83,000 applications to jobs at 108 of the largest U.S. employers and counted who called back. Distinctively Black names reduced employer contact by 2.1 percentage points on average.

The average was the least interesting number in the paper. The most discriminatory fifth of firms produced nearly half of the lost contacts to Black applicants. Some employers need us more than others. We consider that segmentation.

One limitation: everything Kline measured is counted at first contact. A callback is a door, and the audit records who got through it, once, in a single round. What a closed door costs after that is not in the study.

The compounding

The cost was measured in 2025 by J. Aislinn Bohren, Peter Hull, and Alex Imas, who tested what happens when discrimination enters more than one round of a career. Inexperienced Black applicants faced greater discrimination. One line of experience made the same applicant 50% more likely to receive a callback. The first decision controls who acquires the experience the next decision rewards.

A lost callback does not end with one application. It helps write the next résumé.

The market manufactures our demand.

The coverage

Emily and Lakisha were never the whole market. They were the cleanest experiment.

In the U.S. meta-analysis, white applicants received 24% more callbacks than equally qualified Latino applicants. In Toronto, the callback rate was 15.8% for English names, 11.5% for Indian names, 11.3% for Chinese names, and 11.0% for Pakistani names. In Chicago, women with unfamiliar names received callbacks at 16.4%, against 23.0% for the Anglo-named control.

Names signal identity with uneven strength, so the engine prices each name against its closest study rather than its census category. The largest U.S. audit found no significant average contact gap between men and women. Where the evidence found no average penalty, we do not price one.

The audits began with Black names because that signal was the cleanest to isolate. Then the method traveled. In Toronto it found the penalty on foreign experience as well as foreign names, and language fluency, multinational experience, and elite education did not erase it. In 100 U.S. cities it found callbacks falling as unemployment spells lengthened, with most of the decline arriving in the first eight months. Everywhere the instrument pointed, it found a price. The penalties differ by name, by city, by strength of signal. The control does not. Every study in our references measures a different distance from the same man.

Name. Experience. Accent. The time between jobs. A résumé is a readable surface, and the market reads all of it, on everyone. The market keeps finding parts of a person that can be reformatted as risk.

That is the product.

The consensus

None of this is a secret. The career-advice industry’s own bestsellers open by conceding that the job search is not a meritocracy and never was. Then they advise you to delete your graduation year, scrub your early jobs, and look like you are not looking. The advice varies in technique and agrees on the customer. Every answer on the market, ours included, is written for the applicant’s side of the desk.

The unsupported path

There is one intervention more complete than ours. It sits on the other side of the desk.

Change the evaluator.

It is the only fix that reaches the cause. The applicant arrives whole, under the name they were given, in the voice they already have, and the qualifications weigh the same in every body. Nothing gets optimized because nothing is treated as a defect.

We reviewed it.

Blind the application. Fix the criteria. Structure the interview. Document the decision. Audit the outcome. Hold the manager accountable. It is not one intervention. It is a chain, and it has to hold at every subjective handoff. Bias needs one opening.

The links have been tested. The results are in our references. In the one large randomized trial of anonymous résumés, participating firms went on to interview fewer minority candidates, not more. Diversity training moved attitudes in a 3,016-employee field experiment; behavior mostly stayed where it was. Across 492 studies, implicit bias could be shifted; hiring behavior did not follow. The structured interview held. It is one link.

And the chain ends where the paperwork ends. An audit reads what was written down. It was not on the phone screen when the name arrived with a voice. It did not attend the debrief where a candidate was articulate but not a culture fit. It has no field for the interviewer who just did not click with someone, no record of who got invited to golf, whose name got shortened on day one, whose mistake became a pattern and whose became a bad week. Everyone inside the building knows these stages exist. No one is assigned to them, because officially they are not stages.

Suppose the chain ran anyway, on the stages it can reach. Someone has to pay for it. The chain disciplines managers, and managers run the company. The office that holds them accountable reports to an executive whose bonus is quarterly. In a good year the program is a budget line. In a bad year it is the first one cut. A structured interview costs more time per hire than a conversation, and its return arrives as events that never occur, lawsuits not filed, departures not taken, complaints not written. There is no line item for problems that did not occur. No one has ever been promoted for the absence of an event.

The institution has a task force and a budget cycle. The applicant has next Tuesday.

A market where the evaluator changes. We did not reject this because it cannot work. We rejected it because, when it works, our customer disappears.

There is no product in a fixed market.

Required disclosure: a measurable decline in hiring discrimination would materially affect this business. None appeared in the twenty-five-year U.S. meta-analysis. Later large-scale studies continued to find racial gaps. We consider the risk manageable.

The supported path

Changing the evaluator is slow, collective, and not economically viable.

Change who enters the room.

Bias does not end when the résumé does. Eventually the optimized name has to enter a room. It arrives with a face. A voice. A body. A life no document can keep off the record.

The room read the paper and formed an expectation. Then a person walks in, and the room compares. Whatever it decides the difference means, the DEI hire, the quota, the surprise, the candidate stops being the one they thought they said yes to. The market reads what it can see, and the body is the last readable surface. Every document we optimize is a promise the body is asked to keep.

We classify that moment as re-exposure.

Coming soon

The Familiar™

The RightYou™, in person.

Every optimization in our catalog stops at the same wall. The résumé can be perfect. The name can score 100. And then the interview is scheduled, and you have to be there.

We solved that.

See how →

References

“Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?”

Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan · American Economic Review, 94(4) · 2004

Identical résumés with white-sounding names received approximately 50% more callbacks than those with Black-sounding names.

nber.org/papers/w9873

“Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time”

Lincoln Quillian, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel & Arnfinn Midtbøen · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41) · 2017

Across 25 years of field experiments, discrimination against Black applicants did not decline.

pnas.org

“Whitened Résumés: Race and Self-Presentation in the Labor Market”

Sonia Kang, Katherine DeCelles, András Tilcsik & Sora Jun · Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3) · 2016

Applicants who whitened their résumés received significantly more callbacks; pro-diversity employers discriminated at the same rate as those without statements.

journals.sagepub.com

“Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers”

Patrick Kline, Evan K. Rose & Christopher R. Walters · Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(4) · 2022

More than 83,000 applications to 108 of the largest U.S. employers found racial discrimination varied sharply by company; the insignificant average gender gap also concealed large employer-level variation.

doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac024

“The Mark of a Criminal Record”

Devah Pager · American Journal of Sociology, 108(5) · 2003

A criminal record sharply reduced callbacks, with effects compounded by race.

doi.org/10.1086/374403

“Why Do Skilled Immigrants Struggle in the Labor Market?”

Philip Oreopoulos · American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(4) · 2011

Résumés with Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani names received substantially fewer callbacks than identical résumés with English names.

doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.4.148

“How Black Are Lakisha and Jamal? Racial Perceptions from Names Used in Correspondence Audit Studies”

S. Michael Gaddis · Sociological Science, 4 · 2017

Names commonly used in hiring audits produced widely different racial perceptions, showing that a category label is not a uniform signal.

doi.org/10.15195/v4.a19

“Racial/Ethnic Perceptions from Hispanic Names: Selecting Names to Test for Discrimination”

S. Michael Gaddis · Socius, 3 · 2017

Hispanic identity signals varied by first name, surname, and gender, supplying measured signal strength rather than a single Hispanic-name assumption.

doi.org/10.1177/2378023117737193

Frequently Occurring First Names and Last Names in the 2020 Census

U.S. Census Bureau · released 2026

Official first-name and surname frequency ranks supply the model’s familiarity reference. Frequency is not used as racial evidence.

census.gov

“Indiscriminate Discrimination: A Correspondence Test for Ethnic Homophily in the Chicago Labor Market”

Nicolas Jacquemet & Constantine Yannelis · Labour Economics, 19(6) · 2012

Female applicants with ethnically unidentifiable names received fewer callbacks than identical applicants with Anglo names.

doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.08.004

“It’s All in the Name: Employment Discrimination Against Arab Americans”

Daniel Widner & Stephen Chicoine · Sociological Forum, 26(4) · 2011

In a male-only U.S. field experiment, the Arab-named applicant needed 2.79 résumés for each one sent by the white-named control to receive the same callbacks.

doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01285.x

“Duration Dependence and Labor Market Conditions: Evidence from a Field Experiment”

Kory Kroft, Fabian Lange & Matthew J. Notowidigdo · Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(3) · 2013

Callbacks declined as unemployment spells lengthened, with most of the decline occurring in the first eight months.

doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt015

“Systemic Discrimination: Theory and Measurement”

J. Aislinn Bohren, Peter Hull & Alex Imas · Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(3) · 2025

Discrimination against inexperienced Black workers can reduce access to experience and compound across later hiring rounds.

doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaf022

“Automatic Associations and Discrimination in Hiring: Real World Evidence”

Dan-Olof Rooth · Labour Economics, 17(3) · 2010

Recruiters’ negative automatic associations toward Arab-Muslim men predicted fewer interview invitations in two real hiring field experiments.

doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.04.005

“Is Your Accent Right for the Job? A Meta-Analysis on Accent Bias in Hiring Decisions”

Jessica L. Spence, Matthew J. Hornsey, Eloise M. Stephenson & Kana Imuta · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(3) · 2024

Across 139 effects, standard-accented candidates were rated more hireable than non-standard-accented candidates; differences in comprehensibility did not explain the penalty.

doi.org/10.1177/01461672221130595

The alternatives

“Unintended Effects of Anonymous Résumés”

Luc Behaghel, Bruno Crépon & Thomas Le Barbanchon · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(3) · 2015

In a randomized French program, participating firms became less likely to interview and hire minority candidates when résumés were anonymized.

doi.org/10.1257/app.20140185

“Revisiting Meta-Analytic Estimates of Validity in Personnel Selection”

Paul R. Sackett, Charlene Zhang, Christopher M. Berry & Filip Lievens · Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11) · 2022

After revising inflated historical estimates, structured interviews remained the top-ranked selection procedure.

doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994

“The Structured Employment Interview: Narrative and Quantitative Review of the Research Literature”

Julia Levashina, Christopher J. Hartwell, Frederick P. Morgeson & Michael A. Campion · Personnel Psychology, 67(1) · 2014

The review identifies reducing bias through interview structure as one of the central findings of the structured-interview literature.

doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052

“Does Diversity Training Work the Way It’s Supposed To?”

Edward H. Chang, Katherine L. Milkman and colleagues · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16) · 2019

A 3,016-employee field experiment found attitude change, but limited and uneven behavioral change across the organization.

doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816076116

“A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures”

Patrick S. Forscher, Calvin K. Lai, Jordan R. Axt, Charles R. Ebersole, Michelle Herman, Patricia G. Devine & Brian A. Nosek · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3) · 2019

Across 492 studies, implicit measures could be changed, but the effects were generally weak and did not reliably translate into behavioral change.

doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000160

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 1.0

National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2023

The federal framework for managing AI risk is voluntary, non-sector-specific, and use-case agnostic.

doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

New York City Local Law 144

NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection · enforced since 2023

Covered automated employment decision tools require a recent bias audit, public results, and candidate notice before use in New York City.

nyc.gov

Published. Linked. Reproducible where the data are available. Still hiring.

Coming soon

The Familiar™

The RightYou™, in person.

The final barrier between your qualifications and their comfort is You. Now your presence is no longer required.

Interview through retirement. Employer participation not required.

The Employable Human, an employer-calibrated reinterpretation of the Vitruvian Man with doubled limbs, proportion guides, and a manufactured human interface.
The applicant supplies the qualifications. The employer supplies the proportions.

The last mile

Every optimization works until the applicant arrives.

An application can carry The RightYou™ into the room. It cannot sit in the chair.

The Familiar™ can.

Candidate continuity

The person changes. The candidate does not.

01

We model the person they expected.

Your optimized application is compared with the employer’s current workforce, leadership profile, regional norms, and historical preference patterns.

02

We assign a Familiar™.

A qualified human representative is selected for employer fit. We match to the institution, the industry, and the culture.

03

They become you at work.

They interview, onboard, work, and advance under your employment identity. Your qualifications stay on the record.

Selection standard

A doppelgänger resembles you. That’s no solution. The Familiar™ is matched to the market. They resemble The RightYou™.

Coverage

Choose how long you would like to remain employable.

Interview Coverage

Get through the room.

The Familiar™ completes live interviews, team conversations, and final-round culture assessment. Coverage ends at offer.

Application → Offer

First 90

Make the hire feel correct.

Interview coverage plus onboarding, probation, early relationship-building, and the first performance review.

Application → Day 90

Career Continuity · Recommended

Never reintroduce the variable.

Full-time representation for the duration of your career, including reviews, promotions, sabbaticals and more.

Application → Retirement

No upfront payment. Service fees begin when payroll does.

Nothing changes for them.
That is why it works.

No training. No new process. No disclosure.

No accountability layer.

Adoption is immediate because the employer is not involved.

Questions before substitution.

Is The Familiar™ me?

For employment purposes, yes. For all other purposes, no. They perform the role. Your qualifications remain attached to the account.

Can I ever attend in person?

Not without triggering re-exposure. Client appearances and co-presence are not supported during active coverage.

Why not change the hiring system?

That solution requires employer participation, collective enforcement, and continued institutional effort. The Familiar™ requires a reservation.

Is this legal?

Identity, labor, tax, agency, fraud, liability, and personhood questions remain in active review. Availability may vary by jurisdiction and enforcement priority.

Reserve your replacement.

You earned the job. Let The Familiar™ do the work. Tell us what part of your career you would prefer not to be present for.