TRUST & METHODOLOGY
Matching should support decisions, not hide them.
REKRUTME is being designed around a simple principle: a useful recommendation should show what it is based on, what remains uncertain, and which decisions still belong to people and institutions.
The principles below describe the intended product design and safeguards. They are not a claim that every control or matching rule is already implemented in the current development build.
EXPLAINABLE FIT
A match should be understandable in parts.
Rather than hiding different factors behind one opaque number, the planned model separates the main dimensions of fit and the confidence of the underlying data.
01
Academic fit
Original grades, estimated normalization, relevant tests, study interests, and documented academic requirements.
02
Athletic fit
Sport, event or position, performance, development, achievements, competition context, and supporting evidence.
03
Preference fit
Location, institution characteristics, association or division, study priorities, and the athlete’s academic-versus-athletic balance.
04
Scholarship fit
The type and availability of relevant support, together with conditions, timing, and the source date of the information.
05
Program fit
Current recruiting criteria, coach or team needs, opportunity timing, and the specific athletic program that is actually recruiting.
06
Data confidence
Profile completeness, verification status, source quality, recency, and any missing information that could change the recommendation.
MATCHING LOGIC
Separate hard requirements from weighted fit.
Some conditions may make an opportunity unavailable or require a clear warning. Other factors should influence the strength of a match without pretending to be absolute rules.
POTENTIAL HARD REQUIREMENTS
First ask whether the opportunity is actually applicable.
- The program offers the athlete’s sport and relevant event or position.
- The opportunity is active and appropriate for the intended entry period and athlete category.
- A documented mandatory academic or association requirement is met.
- The athlete has not excluded the relevant association, division, location, or program type.
Exact eligibility rules must be sourced, dated, and versioned. They are not fixed by the initial project notes.
WEIGHTED FIT
Then explain how well the available factors align.
Academic, athletic, preference, scholarship, and program fit can contribute separately. Data confidence should remain visible alongside them so missing or unverified information is not disguised as certainty.
The exact weights, thresholds, and score presentation are still development decisions and should be versioned rather than presented as permanent facts.
THE OUTPUT
Explain the result, not just the score.
A recommendation should make its reasoning inspectable. The intended output includes the overall fit, its main components, the important reasons, conflicting or borderline criteria, missing data, and the version of the rules used.
- a fit band or clearly defined score;
- separate fit components;
- plain-language reasons;
- failed or borderline criteria;
- missing or unverified information;
- calculation date and rule version;
- a reminder that the result is an estimate, not a college decision.
EXAMPLE EXPLANATION
This program appears relevant because your event, performance range, and preferred location align. Academic fit remains preliminary because the transcript has not been verified.
The point is not that this exact wording or score model is final. The point is that uncertainty stays visible instead of disappearing behind a single recommendation number.
DATA IN CONTEXT
Keep the source, context, and uncertainty attached to the data.
Preserve original academic records
International grading systems do not have one universal conversion to a U.S. GPA. The target model retains the original grade, source scale, institution, period, calculation method, normalized estimate, and rule version. An internal estimate must not be presented as an official college or credential-evaluation result.
Keep sports data in context
A performance is meaningful only with the correct event or position, unit, date, competition, conditions, and evidence. Sports that cannot be reduced to one standardized number may require statistics, role, competition level, video, structured achievements, and qualified human evaluation.
Source changing information
Test formats, association rules, eligibility criteria, program offerings, recruiting needs, and scholarship information can change. External data should carry a source, retrieval date, validity date where relevant, and a way to correct or retire stale records.
ATHLETE CONTROL
Sensitive data should not become public by default.
The product is expected to process personal information, academic records, contact details, photographs, performance evidence, and potentially data about minors. Privacy and access therefore have to be part of the product design rather than an afterthought.
TARGET PRIVACY DESIGN
- explicit profile-visibility choices;
- role-based access;
- separate public, restricted, and sensitive data classes;
- controlled document access rather than public links;
- audit records for access and changes;
- export, correction, and deletion workflows;
- age checks and guardian consent where legally required;
- protection against bulk scraping and misuse.
These are product requirements and design targets, not a claim that every control is already implemented today.
DECISION SUPPORT
Human decisions remain human decisions.
REKRUTME can organize information, identify possible fit, and explain the factors behind a recommendation. It cannot replace a college admissions office, athletic association, coach, credential evaluator, financial-aid office, immigration adviser, or the student-athlete’s own judgment.
REKRUTME does not guarantee admission, eligibility, roster placement, coach contact, or scholarship funding.