Internal memo: Introducing the Employee Re-Certification Protocol

**FROM:** Talent Integrity Division, Cromulent AI

**TO:** All Staff

**SUBJECT:** Referral Accountability Framework — Effective Immediately

Following a review of our Q2 referral programme, we have identified a critical gap in our hiring quality assurance. When an employee refers a candidate who subsequently fails a technical interview, the referring employee's own qualifications are called into question. After all, you vouched for them. Your judgment is now suspect.

**Effective Monday:**

- Any employee whose referral fails a coding screen will be enrolled in a mandatory re-interview within five business days. The same panel. The same questions. Your score replaces the referral's score.

- A failing grade on your re-interview triggers a Performance Improvement Plan for "demonstrated lapses in technical discernment."

- Referrals who fail a "basic 3 sum" problem result in immediate revocation of the referring employee's laptop and a mandatory re-do of the onboarding coding bootcamp, regardless of tenure.

- Employees who have never made a referral are exempt. Employees who have are now on notice.

This is not punitive. This is quality assurance. Your network is a reflection of your competence. Choose accordingly.

**FAQ:**

Q: What if my referral simply had a bad day?

A: Did you have a bad day when you passed your interview? Exactly.

Q: Can I withdraw a referral mid-process?

A: Withdrawals are treated as "failure to complete" and carry the same consequences.

Q: What happens if I refer someone who refers someone who fails?

A: We're working on the transitive liability model. Expect an update in Q3.

Signed,

*The Talent Integrity Division*

*Cromulent AI — Hiring Is a Team Sport, and the Team Plays for Keeps*

From the Satire Desk at goodbye, interview. All companies and people in this memo are fictional. Satire is always labelled and never names real companies — the true stories do that on their own. Spotted an error of fact in our non-fiction? Corrections.