Fit is reported against the plan the role has to carry, which is what stops it becoming a verdict on a person.
Why it matters when the plan changes
Reports about a person's suitability are the most consequential documents an assessment process produces and the easiest to over-read. Predictive validity holds only for the use a score was validated against, so a report on fit has to name the role it is measured for rather than pronouncing on the person in general. Personnel selection is a methodical process whose accuracy rests on the specification it is applied against; take away the specification and the same evidence reads as a permanent statement about the individual, this role, this team, this demand, this horizon, rather than a bounded read.
The tension is that buyers often want a portable verdict, something that says whether a person is good. A report anchored to a plan cannot supply it and is less convenient. It is also the only version that can be checked later, because it committed to something specific that either held or did not.
In practice
A Match Report on a candidate for a division lead covers the role as the current plan defines it, the team they would join, the manager they would report to and the culture they would work in. When the plan changes a year later, the report is out of date in a way everyone can see, rather than quietly wrong.
Evidence
A score predicts an outcome only for the use it was validated against, which is why fit has to be reported against a specific role.
Predictive validity, Wikipedia (2026)Selection is a methodical process whose accuracy rests on the specification it is applied against.
Personnel selection, Wikipedia (2026)
What it cannot tell you
A Match Report describes fit between a person and a specific role, team, manager and culture as the plan currently defines them. It says nothing about the person outside that arrangement, cannot rank candidates against each other, and cannot forecast fit once the plan changes. Read past its stated horizon, it misleads rather than informs.
How Atlas reads it
The Match Report is one of three evidence views, alongside the Team Report and the Collaboration Playbook, all drawn from the same decision case. A separately ordered report does not require a separate product. Match Map is the approved future name and is not current; Match Report remains canonical in delivery, contracts and the platform until a rename programme ships.
Questions
A Match Report covers fit between a person and a defined role, the team, manager and culture, all read against current plan. As Predictive validity (Wikipedia, 2026) notes, a score predicts an outcome only for the use it was validated against, so the report is bounded to that plan and carries a review point rather than standing indefinitely.
Yes. A separately ordered report does not require a separate software product, because it is a view of evidence held inside a decision case. What it cannot do is answer a question the case has no evidence for, so the scope of the report and the case are agreed together.
No. It describes fit between a person and a specific arrangement, which is two-sided and situation-bound. Nobody is ranked out. Where fit is strained, the available moves include changing the plan, the role or the support, not only changing the person.
A Match Report stays valid only until the plan changes what the role demands. Personnel selection (Wikipedia, 2026) frames selection as a methodical process whose accuracy depends on the specification it is applied against; when any of the six triggers fires, the specification has moved and the report should be revisited.
Match Map is approved in principle as a future name and is not current. Renaming touches the platform, contracts, the proposal template and delivery, so the current names remain canonical until a rename programme ships with a named owner and a date.