Background check adjudication with every record weighed the way the law requires, and cleared candidates starting on time
Every record weighed the way the law requires, and cleared candidates start on time.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Background check adjudication is deciding what a background report means for a specific job: setting aside what the law forbids, applying the role's hiring criteria and the local fair-chance law, and following the FCRA adverse action steps when the answer may be no. Background Check Adjudication does this with eight AI agents that walk every record through those steps, cite each one and time every notice, while the adjudicator decides and counsel approves every final adverse action.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Most reports come back clear. The ones with records land on an adjudicator: a PDF from the screening company on one screen, the hiring criteria matrix on another, and a binder of state and city fair-chance rules. She checks every date against the seven-year rules, throws out arrests without conviction and sealed or diversion records, looks up whether the offence bears on the duties of this job, writes the individualized assessment, and only then decides whether to clear, hold or start the pre-adverse action notice.
Every step that is skipped or mistimed is a claim, and these claims come as class actions: a record the law forbids considering read anyway, the wrong waiting period for the location, a final notice sent a day early, a candidate's dispute answered by nobody, the same misdemeanour cleared by one adjudicator and reviewed by another. Meanwhile every clear that waits in a queue pushes back a start date, and a driver who cannot start Monday takes another job.
Estimated split of the 4.6-day median from report to decision in the sample organisation, by hand and with the solution. The waiting period the law gives a candidate is not counted here and is never shortened.
Eight agents read, set aside, weigh and give notice; adjudicators decide and counsel approves every final.
Andre Villanueva has a conditional offer to drive a delivery van out of Kestrel & Vane's Boyle Heights depot in Los Angeles, starting Mon 19 Oct. Halvard Screening's report HS-7781-2046 arrives on Tue 13 Oct at 16:42 with three records. Here is how Kim Tran and the agents work it, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Kim's Today screen reads like a briefing: 212 reports since yesterday afternoon, 181 clear and ready for her sign-off, 14 that need her decision, 9 waiting periods running. Under it, each agent writes in plain words, with numbered sources — the rules agent and second reader agent propose clearing Andre; the second reader disagrees with the rules agent on Marisol Quintana's conviction date; the response agent has extended Tasha Greene's clock. Beside it, she can ask the agents anything.
“Andre Villanueva can start Monday, if you agree … We propose clearing him.” — Clear · 94% · Second reader agrees · 38 of 38 alike cleared
The case opens on a timeline from offer to start, and a grid: each record is a row, each legal step a column — Reportable? · Related to the job? · How long ago? · Rehabilitation and context · Outcome. The intake agent checked all 7 of 7 searches and matched name, birth date and address on every record; the reading agent split the report into 3 records, each field quoted from the report. Every cell carries its citations, and the rules at Los Angeles — federal, California and City of Los Angeles — sit beside the reading.
“No waiting period running. If you consider adverse action, Los Angeles, CA gives Andre 5 business days to respond.”
A 2021 arrest with no conviction sits on the report as record 3. The reportability agent set it aside and hid its details from Kim before she opened the case: she sees that one record was set aside and why, not what it says. It drafted a correction request to Halvard Screening for her to approve; nothing goes without her approval.
“Cannot be reported or considered. An arrest that did not lead to a conviction may not be reported by a screening company in California, and may not be considered by an employer.”
Record 1, a 2019 disturbing-the-peace misdemeanour, is not related to driving: criteria v4 count public order for drivers only within 3 years and only with violence or a vehicle. Record 2, a 2023 speeding ticket, is related, and within the driver policy: 1 point of 3. The rules agent drafts the individualized assessment from those steps for Kim to edit. The second reader agent read both records again on its own and agrees at 95%; the precedent check finds 38 of 38 alike cleared. Kim asks why the 2019 record does not count, and gets three reasons, each cited.
“Second reader agrees (95%). It reached ‘within policy’ from the DMV record itself, without seeing my notes.”
“Clear Andre” opens the decision: clear, hold, consider adverse action or disagree with the agents, each with its reason code. Kim picks C2, Relevant record within policy. The note on the record is already drafted — record 1 not job-related for a driver, record 2 one point of three, record 3 not considered — and she signs as Kim Tran, Background Check Adjudicator.
“The agents propose: Clear (94%). You decide; the reason code, your note and your e-signature go on the record, and no candidate is ever rejected by an agent.”
Report to decision: 21 hours 6 minutes. Jordan Pike, the recruiter, is told “Cleared, start date Mon 19 Oct kept” and never sees the records. The applicant tracking system shows Ready to start, and the correction request goes to Halvard Screening. Every step is on the audit trail.
On Marisol Quintana's reckless driving, the rules agent counted from the offence date, 3 Aug 2019, and proposed Clear · C3: outside the 7-year look-back. The second reader counted from the conviction on 21 Jan 2020 — the criteria count every look-back from the conviction — and proposed Consider adverse action · A1. Both readings sit side by side, and Kim chooses one.
“We disagree on Marisol Quintana’s conviction date … Neither of us decides: you do.”
Tasha Greene, a warehouse associate at the same depot, has a grand theft conviction reported as a felony. Her pre-adverse notice went out Thu 8 Oct by email and post, with the report, the FCRA summary of rights and the assessment. When she disputed it, the clock moved from Thu 15 Oct to Thu 22 Oct — day 4 of 10 business days — and the earliest final decision became Fri 23 Oct. The final notice cannot be sent before then.
The notice agent counts business days by the law of the job's location and never sends a final notice early.
Tasha wrote that the judge reduced the conviction to a misdemeanour under 17(b) in March 2025, and attached a forklift and inventory certificate and her supervisor's letter. The response agent extended her clock by five business days, as California gives when a candidate disputes and is getting evidence, asked Halvard Screening to reinvestigate, summarised the 120-hour programme and the 14 months without a discrepancy, and drafted the second assessment. Its reply to Tasha waits for Kim to send.
“Process only: it says nothing about the decision.”
Devon Hartley's waiting period in Brooklyn ended with no response. The notice agent assembled his file and checked it step by step: disclosure and authorization, the Fair Chance Notice and Article 23-A analysis, the report, the summary of rights, five business days with the position held open, the signed analysis and the final notice content. Ruth approves with K1 or returns it with a reason, and only counsel can sign.
“No final adverse action goes out without employment counsel.”
The same background report, seen by five of the people around it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents read, set aside, weigh and give notice; adjudicators decide and counsel approves every final.
Receives each report from the screening company, checks that every search came back and that every record matches the candidate on name, date of birth and address history.
Splits the report into records: charge, statute, level, court, case number, offence, disposition and sentence dates, and completion.
Applies the seven-year rules and the bars on sealed, dismissed, juvenile, diversion and non-conviction records for the location, and hides what may not be considered from the person deciding.
Applies the role's hiring criteria and the location's fair-chance law to each record, step by step, and drafts the individualized assessment.
Reads every record that is not clear again, independently, and runs the precedent check: how the same record for the same role was decided before.
Drafts the pre-adverse and final notices with the report, the FCRA summary of rights, the assessment and the local forms, counts business days by location and sends by the channels the law asks for.
Reads candidates' replies, disputes and evidence, extends the clock where the law requires, drafts the second assessment and replies, and answers candidates' process questions.
Reports outcomes, time to decision, consistency between adjudicators and adverse-action rates by group, and drafts the monthly note for counsel.
Reason codes, e-signatures. The agents propose; a named person decides.
They answer with sources and act only when you say so — on Today, on every case, on a candidate's response and on the criteria.
What should I do first?
Clear Andre Villanueva first: he starts Monday and both readers agree. Then decide Marisol Quintana, where we disagree on a date, and sign the 181 clears. Jamal Whitfield's notice can wait until this afternoon; his start is 26 Oct.
Why is the 2019 record not job-related?
Three reasons. The criteria count a public-order offence for drivers only within 3 years and only with violence or a vehicle; this one had neither. It is almost 7 years old. And the City of Los Angeles asks for a link to the specific duties of the job, which I cannot make.
Does the reduction change the outcome?
Probably. A misdemeanour 3 years 5 months old, probation completed, with 14 months of clean inventory work: under California's rule that the assessment be reasoned and evidence-based, I could not support withdrawing the offer. You do not have to wait for the court order to clear her; you do have to wait for it to send a final notice.
What if public order counted for 5 years for drivers?
Over the last 90 days it would have sent 14 more driver cases to an adjudicator, all misdemeanours without violence or a vehicle, and changed no outcome: all 14 were cleared. It would add about a day to each of those starts. I drafted it as v5 so you can compare; nothing changes until Dana approves.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What counts for each kind of job, and how far back, is approved by the HR Operations director and reviewed by counsel. The rules agent applies only the approved version, and every threshold change waits for approval.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Hiring criteria | v4 · 6 role families × 10 offence categories | A look-back in years, “Not related” or the driver policy per cell, each with its reason and the job duties behind it |
| Look-backs count from | The conviction | Set in the approved criteria version |
| Confidence to propose a clear | 90% | Below it, the case goes to an adjudicator |
| Largest bulk sign-off | 250 reports | One signature covers at most this many clears |
| Company minimum waiting period | 5 business days | Applies where the law sets less or nothing |
| Hold a mismatched record | Always | Locked: a record that does not match on two identifiers is never read |
| Second reader on every case that is not clear | On | Locked |
| Precedent check | On | Same record, same role, past outcomes |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (NELP — 70 million with records; 15 U.S.C. §1681n — $100–$1,000 per consumer for a wilful violation; Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance 2024 — $5,000–$20,000 per violation; California Gov. Code §12952 and 2 CCR §11017.1). Law summaries in the working solution are simplified for the demo; your counsel confirms each rule before go-live. People, companies, cases and reports named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Background check adjudication is deciding what a background report means for a specific job: setting aside what the law forbids, applying the role's hiring criteria and the local fair-chance law, and following the FCRA adverse action steps when the answer may be no. Background Check Adjudication does this with eight AI agents that walk every record through those steps, cite each one and time every notice, while the adjudicator decides and counsel approves every final adverse action.
The notice agent drafts the pre-adverse action notice with a copy of the report, the FCRA summary of rights, the individualized assessment and the local form, and sends it by the channels the location asks for, email and post in the sample cases, only once the adjudicator signs. It counts the waiting period in business days by the law of the job's location, holds the final notice until the clock ends, and sends it only after employment counsel approves.
The rules agent drafts it from the legal steps — the nature and gravity of the offence, the time since the conviction and the sentence, the duties of the job, and the evidence of rehabilitation — with each point cited. The adjudicator edits it. When a candidate responds, the response agent drafts the second assessment from their evidence.
The reportability agent sets them aside before anyone opens the case — for example an arrest that did not lead to a conviction in California — and hides their details from the adjudicator so they cannot sway her. She sees that a record was set aside and why. A correction request to the screening company is drafted for her approval.
Each location carries the rules that apply there — federal, state and city — with what may not be considered, the assessment, the waiting days, the notice contents and delivery. Every step on a case cites the rule it used, and counsel reviews the rules by location.
No. The agents propose clear, hold or consider adverse action. The adjudicator decides every case that is not clear with a reason code and an e-signature, a second agent reads every case that is not clear independently, disagreements go to the adjudicator, and counsel approves every final adverse action.
Outcomes and start dates, never records. When a candidate is cleared the recruiter is told within 15 minutes of the signature and the applicant tracking system shows Ready to start. Asked what is on the report, the agent tells the recruiter it cannot show it: only adjudicators and employment counsel see records.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your hiring criteria, job duties, notice templates and the fair-chance rules your counsel has approved for each location — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on a sample of your own past reports first.
Every HR answer cited to the policy that applies; sensitive cases always with a person.
1-min demoAI Resume ScreeningEvery applicant read against the job, and every decision cited and checked for fairness.
1-min demoWorkplace Investigation ManagementEvery finding tied to quoted evidence and tested for gaps before anyone signs.
1-min demoWe'll run Background Check Adjudication on a sample of your own past reports, your hiring criteria and the locations you hire in.