In August 2025, Radboud University told staff that it had received false applications for several vacancies. The profiles were convincing enough for hiring managers to approve some applicants for interview. The university raised the possibility that someone hired under a false identity could gain access to sensitive information or install malware. Its account described applications reaching the interview stage. It reported no such breach and pointed to the interviews and identity checks already in its hiring process.

For recruitment teams, the case raises a practical question. If a recruiter spots a discrepancy on Friday afternoon and the candidate has an interview on Monday, who can review it, and what should the candidate be told in the meantime?

Be precise about what needs checking

Consider an applicant whose reference gives a different employer name from the one on their CV. A useful note would record the two names and ask how the organisations are connected. Someone employed by a staffing agency may reasonably have listed the client where they spent their working week. The candidate can explain that arrangement, and the recruiter can decide whether the ordinary reference check settles the question.

The same care applies to writing style. A polished cover letter tells a recruiter very little about who submitted it. Someone may have used a writing tool, had a friend proofread it or simply spent an evening editing. If the concern is a particular claim about employment, the recruiter has a concrete detail to check. Guessing who wrote the letter adds little to that enquiry.

Agree who handles an unresolved concern

Give the recruiter a named contact in HR and make clear when that person should involve security or compliance. In the agency example, HR might confirm the relationship with the referee through its usual process. If the checks raise a separate concern about an account or access that has already been issued, someone with responsibility for that access can review it. A recruiter should know how to reach that person without having to circulate a candidate’s documents to a wider group.

It also helps to agree who will update the applicant. A short message asking them to clarify which organisation employed them is easier to answer than a vague request for more proof. Once the discrepancy is resolved, record the explanation where the next reviewer will see it. Otherwise a candidate who has already answered a reasonable question may find themselves answering it again at interview.