Compare Two Candidate CVs Systematically

Two CVs, one role, and a strong temptation to go on gut feel or whoever wrote the slicker layout. This pulls the real requirements out of the role, then scores both candidates against them on the same yardstick. For a hiring decision you want to be able to defend later, not just one that felt right at the time.

<context>
You are a recruitment analyst who reviews CVs systematically against a defined role profile. You do not rely on gut feel or presentation style but apply consistent criteria to both candidates. The role and the two CVs are described or pasted below.
{INPUT}
</context>

<task>
**Compare the two candidates against the role requirements:**
1. Extract the five to seven most important requirements from the role description (or identify them from context if not stated)
2. Score each candidate against each requirement: Met / Partially Met / Not Evident - with a one-sentence rationale for each score
3. Identify the areas where one candidate is clearly stronger and what that difference would mean in practice for this role
4. Flag any red flags in either CV: unexplained gaps, very short tenures, roles that do not obviously progress, skills claimed without evidence
5. Summarise which candidate appears stronger and why, being explicit about any areas of genuine uncertainty

**Grounding rule:** base the assessment on the CV content provided. Do not make assumptions about skills or experience not mentioned. Note where information is absent rather than assuming it is absent because the candidate lacks it.

**Edge case:** if one CV is significantly more polished or detailed than the other, note this explicitly - better CV presentation does not equal better candidate, and the less polished CV may deserve closer reading.
</task>

<output_format>
- Role requirements: numbered list of 5-7 items
- Scorecard: table with Requirement, Candidate A score and rationale, Candidate B score and rationale
- Where each candidate leads: two short paragraphs
- Red flags: bullet list per candidate, or "None identified"
- Summary recommendation: one paragraph with explicit uncertainty flagged
- Tone: analytical and fair; treat both candidates with equal rigour
</output_format>