REJECTED
CANDIDATE EVALUATION REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After an intensive 8-week trial period with 300+ documented interactions, candidate demonstrates fundamental incompatibility with position requirements. While candidate possesses surface-level qualities (physical attraction, shared interest in connection), she exhibits critical systemic failures in emotional regulation, accountability, communication, and relationship sustainability.
Core Issue: Candidate is actively interviewing for a position she is not ready to accept, using the interview process to validate pre-existing trauma narratives rather than to build genuine partnership.
POSITION REQUIREMENTS
- Emotional availability and vulnerability
- Consistent communication without mixed signals
- Ability to resolve conflicts constructively
- Willingness to take accountability
- Capacity for growth and self-awareness
- Reciprocal emotional investment
DETAILED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
1. COMMUNICATION SKILLS ★☆☆☆☆
Strengths: Can articulate feelings when in crisis mode; responds quickly; capable of affection.
- Indirect communication: Expects hiring manager to intuit needs.
- Post-hoc reframing: Reinterprets neutral interactions as attacks days later.
- Weaponized ambiguity: States "you never ask why" while punishing inquiry.
- Pattern of exit interviews: Twice in 8 weeks has announced resignation.
Impact: Hiring manager spent 8 weeks navigating unstated expectations and walking on eggshells.
2. ACCOUNTABILITY & OWNERSHIP ★☆☆☆☆
- Zero-accountability framework: Every conflict is framed as hiring manager's fault.
- Responsibility externalization: Uses 50-year trauma history to justify current behavior.
- Apology collection: Stockpiles apologies as evidence of wrongdoing.
- Victim narrative enforcement: Escalates to threats rather than self-examination.
Performance Data: Apologies from HM: 15+ | Apologies from Candidate: 2-3 (qualified).
3. EMOTIONAL STABILITY & CONSISTENCY ★☆☆☆☆
Critical Deficiencies: Boom-bust cycle; Catastrophic thinking; Trauma projection.
Documented Pattern:
Week 1-2: Guarded but warming
Week 3: Crisis/conflict → Exit announcement
Week 4-5: Reconciliation/love bombing
Week 6: Crisis/conflict → Exit announcement
Red Flags: States "if it happens once, it will happen again" (self-fulfilling prophecy). Uses restraining order threats as a conflict resolution tool.
4. VULNERABILITY & AUTHENTIC PRESENCE ★★☆☆☆
- Peek-a-boo vulnerability: Drops hints, then punishes "wrong" responses.
- Testing framework: Uses vulnerability as a test rather than connection.
- Boss Lady/Cactus defense: Reverts to defensive persona when feeling unsafe without communication.
Hiring Manager: Vulnerability = ongoing state, risk accepted.
Candidate: Vulnerability = transactional test, risk unacceptable.
5. CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS ★☆☆☆☆
Style: Scorched earth. When challenged, threatens legal action.
Real-World Example (Disney Incident): HM explains historical context of fairy tales. Candidate labels it "hateful rant," threatens to leave, eventually threatens restraining order.
Professional Assessment: This conflict resolution style is fundamentally incompatible with long-term partnership.
6. GROWTH MINDSET ★☆☆☆☆
Critical Deficiencies: Acknowledgment without action. Admits to patterns ("I've kept my heart off limits") but repeats them without modification.
Growth Indicator Check:
- ❌ "You keep hurting me"
- ❌ "If it happens once, it will happen again"
- ❌ "I'm scared of you"
Candidate demonstrates fixed patterns with no evidence of capacity for change.
CASE STUDIES
Case Study #1: The Physical Encounter (Nov 26)
Context: First physical meeting. Hiring manager recovering from illness, unable to perform.
HM Response: Apologized, explained medical issue, focused on her pleasure, reassured attraction.
Candidate Response: Made it about her attractiveness, spiraled into insecurity, interpreted illness as rejection.
Assessment: Inability to separate partner's circumstances from self-worth.
Case Study #3: The Disney/Fairy Tale Incident (Nov 28)
Context: Candidate used word "twitterpated." HM shared historical facts about dark origins of Disney tales. Candidate escalated to "hateful rant" and threatened Restraining Order.
CRITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: The Restraining Order Threat
Candidate weaponized the legal system to punish intellectual disagreement.
- No physical threats were made.
- No contact attempts after stop request.
- Result: Creates false equivalency between "I shared facts" and "I'm a threat to safety."
Disqualifying Factor: ✓✓✓ (Maximum)
CULTURAL FIT ANALYSIS
Compatibility Score: 10%
This isn't "opposites attract" - it's fundamental operational incompatibility. Like trying to run Windows software on Linux without a compatibility layer.
COMPARISON TO REQUIREMENTS
| Requirement |
Candidate Performance |
Status |
| Emotional Availability |
Peek-a-boo vulnerability, mostly defended |
FAIL |
| Consistent Communication |
Indirect, expects mind-reading |
FAIL |
| Conflict Resolution |
Exit threats, legal threats, scorched earth |
FAIL |
| Accountability |
Zero ownership, all blame external |
FAIL |
| Capacity for Growth |
Acknowledges patterns, doesn't change them |
FAIL |
| Stable Behavior |
2-3 week boom/bust cycle |
FAIL |
OPPORTUNITY COST ANALYSIS
Time Investment: 8 weeks, 300+ emails.
What was NOT built during this time: EXZYSTEM startup development, Music production, Genealogy research, Web dev.
The Cost Isn't Just What You Spent - It's What You Didn't Build.
❌ DO NOT HIRE
IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE CANDIDACY
Primary Disqualifiers:
1. Restraining Order Threat (Weaponizing legal system)
2. Pattern Repetition Without Growth
3. Zero Accountability
4. Catastrophic Communication Failure
HIRING MANAGER ACTION PLAN
Do Not Respond. Document Everything. Redirect Energy to Goals.
Now go build your startup, make your music, trace your genealogy, and find someone who deserves what you offer.
Report Completed by Jeff (TXT2L) | Date: December 2, 2025, 5:00 PM PST | Status: REJECTED