How can you tell if a CV is too good to be true?

I see a lot of CVs. It comes with the territory when you’re recruiting into niche roles across supply chain, procurement and logistics. 

 

Every now and then, one lands that looks perfect.

Not just good… perfect. The right job titles, the right progression, the right achievements, all aligned neatly to the brief. On paper, it’s exactly what you’ve been searching for. 

And that’s precisely why it can be a problem.

 

The CV that raised questions

Recently, I received an application for a role I was working on. The CV ticked every box. It was one of those rare profiles where everything lines up so well you almost can’t believe your luck. 

I picked up the phone straight away to speak to the candidate. 

Fortunately, it went to voicemail, because that gave me a moment to pause and reflect. 

In all my years recruiting, it’s incredibly rare for a candidate of that quality to apply directly. Most of the strongest hires we make are proactively sourced. That was my first red flag.

 

Digging beneath the surface

I started with a quick sense-check on LinkedIn. There wasn’t much there. That alone isn’t unusual, not everyone keeps their profile up to date, but it didn’t quite align with how strong the CV was. 

Next, I ran some targeted searches using the kind of keywords and achievements you’d expect someone at that level to have. Nothing came up. That was more concerning. 

It’s rare for someone with that level of experience to have no presence across job boards or professional platforms, particularly if they’re actively applying for roles. 

So I changed tack and searched for something more specific to the individual. 

That’s when I found it, an older version of their CV. 

Same name. Same phone number. Same education. But the experience was different. Different companies, different dates, and notably missing the most recent “perfect” role. 

At this point, there were still possible explanations. CVs evolve. People make mistakes with dates. Businesses change names through acquisitions. I didn’t want to rule someone out without being certain. 

But it was enough to warrant a deeper look.

 

Where it started to unravel

The most recent role described on the CV involved working across multiple stakeholders and departments. On the face of it, that sounded credible. 

But when I looked into the company itself, the structure didn’t support that claim. Based on its size, it simply wouldn’t have had that level of organisational complexity. 

I then checked the company records. They’d been trading for a while, but there was a pattern of short-term appointments followed by cessations. That raised concerns about how reliable any reference from that business would be. 

Shortly after, the candidate returned my call. 

I addressed the discrepancies directly. To their credit, they engaged and tried to explain the situation, positioning the role as consultancy work carried out on behalf of that business. 

They quickly provided a reference. But that raised even more questions. 

The company behind the reference had a professional-looking website, but it was generic. There was no LinkedIn presence, no news coverage, and crucially, no official registration in the country it claimed to operate in. 

 

At that point, the risk was simply too high. I made the decision not to progress the candidate.

 

What stood out most

What’s interesting is that the CV itself didn’t contain the typical signs people associate with AI-generated content. 

There were no obvious formatting tells. No generic phrases or overused buzzwords. On the surface, it looked credible. What raised warning bells wasn’t the wording, it was the context. 

The inconsistencies. The lack of traceability. The mismatch between what was claimed and what could be verified. That’s the reality of where we are now.

 

Why this is happening more often

AI has made it easier than ever for candidates to refine and optimise their CVs. In many cases, that’s a positive. Clearer, better-structured CVs help both candidates and employers. 

But it also creates an opportunity to: 

• Overstate achievements  
• Reframe experience to fit a role more closely  
• Fill gaps with credible-sounding but unverifiable detail  
• Present a version of a career that doesn’t quite reflect reality  

The challenge is that these CVs don’t always look suspicious at first glance.

 

The risk for employers

If these profiles aren’t picked up early, the consequences can be significant: 

• Hiring someone who can’t deliver in role  
• Wasted time across interview processes  
• Reputational impact with internal stakeholders  
• The cost of having to rehire  

In a competitive market, that’s a risk most businesses can’t afford to take.

 

How to spot an AI-enhanced or misleading CV

From my experience, there isn’t a single giveaway. It’s about joining the dots. 

Here are the key things I look for: 

• Profiles that feel “too perfect” - Especially in niche roles where true matches are rare.  
• Inconsistencies across sources - CV, LinkedIn, job boards - they should broadly align.  
• Limited or non-existent digital footprint - Particularly for experienced professionals.  
• Career timelines that don’t quite add up - Overlaps, rapid progression, or missing detail.  
• Claims that don’t match company reality - For example, complex stakeholder environments in very small businesses.  
• Employers or references that are hard to verify - No registration, no presence, no credibility.  
• Multiple versions of a CV with conflicting information - A major red flag if core details differ. 

 

AI isn’t the problem. It’s how it’s used. 

The reality is, not every “perfect” CV is real. 

And in today’s market, a bit of healthy scepticism (and a few extra checks) can save you a lot of time and risk later on. 

If something feels too good to be true, it usually is.

 

Strengthen your hiring process and reduce risk from the start.

If you want a clearer view of the market and candidates you can trust, we’re here to help.