Completed quality-assurance case study

Job-posting data quality audit

A quality review of information completeness across the same 24 Pakistan analyst job advertisements, using a seven-field checklist, defect register, Five Whys root-cause analysis and corrective/preventive actions.

Sample24 job advertisements

Audit criteria7 applicant-facing fields

Overall score40% completeness

Quality methodAudit, RCA & CAPA

View full audit Download audit data

Audit objective

Determine whether a reasonable applicant receives enough structured information to understand the role, self-screen for eligibility, evaluate the employment arrangement and decide whether to apply. This is an operational and information-quality audit, not a software-testing project.

Audit framework

Responsibilities detailed
Experience requirement stated
Education requirement stated
Tools or technical methods named
Work arrangement or employment type clear
Salary disclosed
Application deadline or open-until-filled status visible

Each field received 1 when visible and 0 when absent in the reviewed public source.

Completeness results

Bar chart showing job-posting information completeness

Information field	Present	Rate	Quality interpretation
Responsibilities detailed	23 of 24	96%	The strongest field.
Tools or technical methods named	16 of 24	67%	Useful signal, but detail varies.
Experience requirement stated	10 of 24	42%	Many applicants cannot self-screen confidently.
Work arrangement / type clear	10 of 24	42%	City alone does not fully describe the arrangement.
Education requirement stated	5 of 24	21%	Frequently absent or implicit.
Application deadline visible	2 of 24	8%	Major process-clarity gap.
Salary disclosed	1 of 24	4%	Major transparency gap.

Defect and risk findings

Salary not disclosed - Medium: weakens comparison and compensation transparency.
Work arrangement unclear - Medium: location does not confirm on-site, hybrid or remote expectations.
Experience threshold missing - Low: increases unsuitable or uncertain applications.
Tools not specific - Medium: candidates cannot judge the operating environment.
Closing date absent - Low: creates uncertainty about application urgency.
Ambiguous titles - Medium: Research, Data, MIS, BI and Quality responsibilities often overlap.

Root-cause analysis

Problem: applicant-facing information is inconsistently structured across public job advertisements.

Important fields are missing because advertisements use different formats.
Formats differ because employers, recruiters and job boards use separate templates.
Templates are not governed by a common applicant-information standard.
Publishing focuses on attracting applications rather than measurable information quality.
Ownership is fragmented across hiring managers, HR, recruiters and job platforms.

Likely root cause: fragmented ownership and non-standard templates, combined with habitual or deliberate non-disclosure of selected fields.

Corrective and preventive actions

Add mandatory fields for salary, experience, education, work mode and closing status.
Require hiring-manager approval of responsibilities, tools and essential/preferred requirements.
Create a controlled job-family and title taxonomy.
Introduce a pre-publication QA checklist.
Audit a monthly sample and report completeness trends.
Use “open until filled” when no fixed closing date exists.

Effectiveness measures

90% or greater completeness across mandatory applicant-facing fields.
100% of active postings show a deadline or approved open-until-filled status.
Fewer applicant clarification questions.
Reduced mismatch between applications and role requirements.
No posting published with unresolved critical fields.

What this project demonstrates

Defining measurable quality criteria before review.
Auditing a sample consistently using binary evidence rules.
Calculating field-level and overall completeness rates.
Separating defects, risks, root causes and actions.
Building CAPA recommendations with effectiveness measures.

Limitations

This is a 24-posting portfolio sample, not a platform-wide compliance audit.
Some sources show summarized job text rather than every original field.
A field missing from the reviewed page may exist elsewhere in the application system.
The audit does not test recruiter response, selection fairness or employer quality.