CV · cover letter · LinkedIn · application answers — checked against each other
Do your documents tell the same story?
Every resume tool checks one document in isolation. Recruiters don't read that way: they open your CV and your LinkedIn side by side, and background-check providers compare exactly those fields for a living. A role dated March 2022 on one document and June 2022 on the other, “Senior Analyst” here and “Analyst” there, a cover-letter figure your CV never mentions — each one is a quiet rejection cause before interview and a landmine in it. This check reads your documents the way a recruiter does, and reports only what it can quote from both sides.
The cross-document consistency check is launching very soon — this page is where it will open, as an add-on to any package. The free resume tools and the full optimization services are live now.
Cross-Document Consistency Check
£29as an add-on · priced in your region's currency at checkout
Added to any package on the order form. On a rewrite order it runs against your finished documents — the rewrite is exactly what puts your LinkedIn and cover letter out of step — so you get the punch-list for bringing everything into line with the new story. On an audit it checks your documents as they stand. Delivered together with your order, reviewed by a human before anything ships.
- • Up to four documents, every pair compared: CV, cover letter, LinkedIn profile, application answers
- • Every finding quotes both sides verbatim, with its location — nothing vague can render
- • Severity ranked the same way as our published audit rubric: critical / major / minor
- • Legitimate variation suppressed by design — rounded dates and shortened titles are not findings
- • A clean result says so plainly, and lists exactly what was checked
What a finding looks like
A finding is two quotes and the gap between them — never a feeling:
[MAJOR] Employment dates stated differently for the same role
Your CV says: “Senior Analyst, March 2022 – Present” (line 8)
Your LinkedIn profile says: “Analyst · June 2022 – Present” (line 14)
What this is: the dates for this role differ by 3 months.
And what it refuses to be: “39%” against “40%” is rounding. “Senior Data Analyst” against “Senior Analyst” is truncation. A profile updated three weeks after you left a job is normal life. None of those will ever appear as findings — the report just tells you how many near-matches were checked and judged legitimate.
The 9 checks
Rendered from the same rule definitions the engine runs — this list and the product cannot drift apart.
Employment dates stated differently for the same role
Recruiters cross-check the CV against LinkedIn as a matter of routine, and date discrepancies are read as carelessness at best and misrepresentation at worst. Background-check providers compare exactly these fields. A reference call that surfaces a third set of dates turns a formality into a problem.
Career start differs between documents
The first thing a recruiter computes from either document is total years of experience. When your CV and your LinkedIn profile imply different career lengths, whichever number supported your seniority claim is now in doubt — and 'years of experience' is one of the two facts screeners are explicitly asked to verify.
A role listed in one document is absent from another
A recruiter who sees a recent, substantial role on one document and not the other reads it as either a hidden problem or an unexplained gap — both are screening red flags, and both get probed in interview. Employment history is the other fact background checks verify line by line.
Job title for the same role stated differently
Titles are the seniority signal recruiters filter on. When the same role reads 'Senior Analyst' on one document and 'Analyst' on another, one of the two versions is working against you — and if the mismatch surfaces at reference-check stage, it reads as inflation even when it was the honest one.
The same claim carries different numbers in different documents
A number is the most memorable part of any achievement, and interviewers write them down. When the cover letter says one figure and the CV says another for the same result, the interview question becomes 'which is it?' — and every other number you've claimed inherits the doubt.
A quantified claim in one document has no support in the CV
Interviewers probe cover-letter claims against the CV in front of them. A specific number that appears nowhere in your CV invites 'tell me more about that' with no written anchor to fall back on — and if the interviewer half-remembers it later and can't find it, it reads as embellishment.
Education stated differently across documents
Education is the single most-verified claim in hiring — degree, institution, year and classification are checked against records, and a mismatch between your own documents is the fastest way to trigger that check. Unlike a title, there is no benign reading of two different graduation years.
A certification claimed differently across documents
Certifications are checkable in seconds against public registers, and 'holds' versus 'working towards' is a difference employers treat as integrity, not detail. Even a year mismatch invites the check that finds the bigger discrepancy.
One document is written in British English, another in American English
Recruiters reading two documents side by side notice register: 'organised' in the CV and 'organized' in the cover letter reads as two authors — or one author who pasted from a template or a generator. For a role where written communication matters, that impression does real damage.
Questions worth asking before you buy
Frequently Asked Questions
Recruiters cross-check the CV against LinkedIn as a matter of routine — it takes them seconds, the profile is one click away, and 'do the dates match?' is one of the two questions background-check providers are explicitly paid to answer. A three-month date discrepancy or a title that reads 'Senior Analyst' on one document and 'Analyst' on the other doesn't get you a question; it usually just gets you a pass. And the discrepancies that survive to interview stage become landmines there: interviewers write numbers down.