Sample shortlist · Lucuma

Eight CVs. Read in full. Ranked, with every score explained.

This is what Lucuma hands back on a real role — not a match percentage from a black box, but a ranked shortlist where you can read the reasoning on every candidate and agree or disagree.

Illustrative, fully anonymised sample. Candidates are composites, not real people.

The role the recruiter set

Management Accountant · London (hybrid) · £55–65k
ACCA / CIMA qualified (or finalist) 3+ yrs management accounting Month-end, budgeting, forecasting Industry (not practice) experience Modern ERP (NetSuite / SAP / Oracle)
91
Candidate A · Qualified Management Accountant
Outstanding match — interview first.
Shortlist

Why 91

ACCA-qualified with six years owning month-end for a £40m manufacturer, on NetSuite. Hits every hard criterion and shows scope beyond the brief (led on budgeting cycles, managed a junior). Only reason it isn't higher: no forecasting-model rebuild evidence, which the client values.

ACCA ✓6 yrs industry ✓NetSuite ✓Month-end ✓
88
Candidate D · Management Accountant
Strong — and nearly overlooked.
Shortlist

Why 88 — the one a skim would miss

The CV is plainly written and front-loads routine duties, so a 20-second skim (or a keyword filter) reads "average". But buried in the third role: they led an ERP migration to Oracle and rebuilt the month-end process, cutting close from 10 days to 4. That's exactly the systems + process strength the client wants — Lucuma read the whole CV and surfaced it.

⚑ Buried achievement surfacedCIMA ✓Oracle ✓
83
Candidate B · Finance Analyst → Management Accountant
Strong, with one honest caveat.
Shortlist

Why 83

Five years, excellent FP&A and forecasting, strong industry background. Marked down — not out — because they are a CIMA finalist, not yet fully qualified. Lucuma states this plainly rather than hiding it, so you can decide if "finalist" clears your bar.

⚑ Qualification: finalist, not completeForecasting ✓
71
Candidate C · Audit Senior (practice)
Good potential — a real transfer gap.
Maybe

Why 71

ACA-qualified and sharp, but a practice (audit) background — not the hands-on industry month-end the brief asks for. Genuinely transferable, common first-move-out-of-practice, but it's a real gap, so Lucuma places them as a considered "maybe", not a false top-tier match.

ACA ✓⚑ Practice, not industry
58
Candidate E · Assistant Management Accountant
Right direction, a level too junior.
Maybe

Why 58

Part-qualified, three years, clearly on the right path — but hasn't yet owned month-end end-to-end. A strong stretch hire if the client will develop; not a like-for-like. Scored honestly for what's evidenced, not inflated on potential.

Part-qual⚑ Not yet owned month-end
36
Candidate G · Financial Accountant
Wrong discipline for this brief.
Not suitable

Why 36

Qualified and capable — but a statutory / financial accounting focus (year-end, reporting, compliance), not the forward-looking management accounting this role needs. Adjacent, not a match. Lucuma won't pad the shortlist to look busy.

19
Candidate H · Bookkeeper
The one a keyword filter would wrongly shortlist.
Not suitable

Why 19 — and why this one matters

Their CV is packed with the words "accounts", "reconciliation" and "ledger", so a keyword-matching ATS would happily rank them near the top. But read it and it's a bookkeeping role with no management accounting, no qualification, no month-end ownership. Lucuma reads meaning, not keywords, and correctly filters them out — so your genuine shortlist stays clean.

⚑ Keyword-rich, wrong role

What just happened, in 90 seconds

Read every CV in fullNo skimming the first page — the buried Oracle migration got found.
Explained every scoreNo black box. You can agree or push back on each one.
Nobody unqualified shortlistedThe keyword-rich bookkeeper was correctly rejected, not ranked.
No guesswork, no inventionThe "finalist" caveat was stated, not hidden. GDPR-safe — no data retained.

Now try it on a role you've already filled.

You already know who you shortlisted and why. See if Lucuma reaches the same names — and whether it flags one you didn't. Free, no card, five minutes.

Take the Retro Test →