Inside the ExpertOps demo workspace
An operations tool for recruiting, screening, onboarding and staffing a network of external experts — shown here on a network of sample people who do not exist.
Everything here is sample data. The 108 sample experts, the projects and the seats were generated by a seeding script. Nobody was contacted: email is written to an in-app outbox and never sent. No payment has ever been made — the most a payment batch can be is exported to a CSV.
Seeded records only; test sign-ups are not counted
Each one an explicit confirmation
Accepting applications now
Scheduled sweeps and queued sends; none failed
How work moves through it
Sourcing, screening, staffing and delivery, with a person at every decision.
Applications arrive
Somebody applies to a published opportunity, or an operator enters them. Either way a person reads the application.
Screening against a fixed rubric
A reviewer scores the submission against an immutable rubric version and either asks for a revision or recommends approval.
A person qualifies them
Nothing is scored automatically, and no protected attribute is anywhere near the decision.
Matching explains itself
Qualified experts are ranked against a project’s requirements, and every exclusion says why. Matching never contacts anyone.
Outreach needs a second approval
A different operator approves a batch before a single message is queued.
Onboarding, seats and delivery
Verification and seat confirmation are each an explicit human action. Work is submitted, reviewed and prepared for payment somewhere else.
The network
Aggregate only. No individual record is shown.
- prospect53
- verified46
- onboarding9
Projects
Seats are consumed by an explicit confirmation, one at a time.
| Project | Status | Seats | Required skill | Rate ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation sandbox | active | 2/2 | Evaluation Design | $250/h |
| Evaluation pilot | draft | 0/2 | Evaluation Design | $250/h |
| Coding review pilot | active | 12/12 | Code Review | $250/h |
| Enterprise process assessment | active | 10/10 | Process Analysis | $250/h |
| Security posture review | active | 8/8 | Threat Modelling | $250/h |
| Hands-on review pilot | matching | 0/1 | Code Review | $300/h |
Matching, worked through on PRJ-0001
rules-v1 · 5 considered · 3 ranked · 2 excluded
No language model. The same inputs always produce the same ranking, and every exclusion says why — which is the part an operator has to be able to defend.
Top of the ranking
Identified by reference only. Names and contact details are not part of this view.
- #1EXP-0002100
- #2EXP-000193
- #3EXP-000390
Why people were excluded
A hard filter, applied before any scoring.
- Already assigned to this project1
- Missing required skill(s): evaluation-design1
What this view deliberately does not show
The demo is a separate projection, not an account with the permissions turned down.
- Candidates, applications and screening answers — those are people’s words.
- The simulated outbox, which holds single-use sign-in links. A link read from it would be a working session.
- Payment items and batches, the activity history, and operator identities.
- Internal notes on any record, and any record not created by the seeding script.
Signing in as an operator shows all of it. That needs an account, and there is no shared demo password.