The CV can be right while the evidence is wrong
Imagine a business appointing a finance director to build controls while entering a new market. A candidate may have held that title in a much larger company, yet inherited mature systems and a substantial support team. Another candidate may have worked at a smaller scale but designed controls from scratch. Neither profile should win on title alone. The appointment turns on which experience answers the actual problem. This is an illustrative brief, not a client case.
What did you own?
An executive interview needs to get beneath the polished account of a result. Who made the decision? What alternatives were available? What did the candidate change, and what was already in place? Useful evidence separates personal contribution from team achievement without pretending that any executive works alone. A confident description of responsibility is not the same as a clear explanation of judgment.
A shortlist should explain the trade-offs
A recommendation is more useful when it shows the hiring team what remains uncertain. One person may bring sector familiarity but little experience of building a function. Another may have the operating experience but need to learn the regulatory environment. The search should make these differences visible, rather than hide them beneath a list of strengths.
For the hiring team, and for the candidate
Before interviews, agree which situations the new leader must be able to handle. Ask candidates to explain comparable decisions and what they would need to understand before acting here. For the candidate, the task is not to tell the longest version of a career. It is to make the most relevant part of that career legible, while being candid about what does not transfer.