← The AI Hype Audit — all 325 verdicts

BS Straight BS: no mainstream ATS auto-rejects a resume over margins or fonts, and the '40 criteria' scanner scare is the setup for a plug of the resume tool shown at the end (RezPass.com) Facebook · Sep 2026

The claim'This is a 13 out of 10 resume. It will trick the ATS and the resume scanner into thinking that you're qualified. There are about 40 main criteria that these scanners use. They look at things like your margins, your font, and your layout... And if you don't optimize for this, your resume could get auto-rejected.' The last frames switch the on-screen banner to 'RezPass.com'.

The fear in this reel is the oldest one in job-search marketing: a robot reads your margins and fonts and throws your resume away before a person sees it. That is not how the systems most employers use actually work. Workday, Greenhouse, Lever and iCIMS are databases. They parse your resume into fields, and recruiters search and filter those fields. The only real automatic rejections come from knockout questions the employer sets up: work authorization, minimum years of experience, a required license, willingness to relocate. Those fire on your answers to the application questions, not on your font. In a late-2025 Enhancv poll of 25 recruiters, 92% said their system does not auto-reject resumes at all. The popular '75% of resumes are rejected by ATS' line goes back to a 2012 sales pitch from Preptel, a resume-optimization company that shut down in 2013 and never published a study. Some of the advice still holds, just for a different reason. A plain single-column layout and standard section headings parse cleanly, and parsing errors can bury you in a recruiter's search. Matching the job's real keywords helps because recruiters search by keyword. Nobody's resume 'tricks' a system into thinking they're qualified, and the '13/10' sample is an ordinary one-column resume. The '40 criteria' and the 'full list here' point to RezPass.com, the AI resume builder named in the final frames. RezPass advertises 34 to 36 'validation checks' and uses the 75% statistic on its own homepage.

What holds up

  • Reel read frame by frame: the banner reads '13/10 RESUME' over a plain single-column sample resume ('Anna Smith'), and in the last frames it changes to 'RezPass.com' with a robot logo. The transcript says 'you can find the full list of these here.'
  • RezPass.com's homepage advertises '36 validation checks' and 'Tested on all the major scanning systems', offers 'Try RezPass for Free', and cites '75% of resumes are read by computers'. Directory listings (SourceForge, HuntScreens) describe it as a freemium ATS resume builder with 34 to 35 checks and paid plans of up to about $20/month. The reel does not disclose whether the creator is paid or an affiliate, and we could not confirm either way.
  • The '75% of resumes rejected by ATS' figure traces to a 2012 sales pitch by Preptel, a resume-optimization vendor that closed in 2013 without publishing any method or sample (JobCannon Research, The Interview Guys, HiringThing).
  • Recruiter-side evidence: Enhancv's late-2025 poll found 92% of 25 recruiters said their ATS does not auto-reject. Guides to Greenhouse, Workday, Lever and iCIMS agree that automatic rejection comes from employer-set knockout questions, and that formatting mostly matters because it affects parsing and recruiters' keyword searches.
  • The #careerhound hashtag matches CareerHound (careerhound.io), a paid job board with a free preview whose promoters also recommend RezPass. We could not confirm who owns it or whether the poster is tied to it, so it is flagged but not asserted.

What doesn’t

  • The fear ('auto-rejected over margins and fonts') is a vendor myth. Real auto-rejection comes from knockout questions, which a resume tool cannot fix.
  • 'Trick the ATS into thinking you're qualified' oversells the tool. Parsing and keyword matching only get you into a recruiter's search results. A person still decides.
  • The '40 criteria' and 'full list here' lead into a product plug (RezPass.com in the closing frames) with no disclosed relationship.

The catch

Formatting matters for one boring reason: a messy layout can scramble the parsed fields, so you stop showing up when a recruiter searches. It does not get you thrown out by a robot. The things that actually screen you out automatically are the employer's knockout questions, and no resume scanner, free or paid, can change your answers to those.

How to actually do it

  • Use one column, standard headings (Experience, Education, Skills), a normal font, and no text inside tables, text boxes, headers or images. Export as .docx or a text-based PDF, then paste it into a plain-text editor. If it reads cleanly in order, it will parse.
  • For each application, mirror the posting's actual hard skills, tools and job title wherever they truthfully apply to you. Recruiters search on those terms. Skip the free match-score tools' idea of a 'passing' score.
  • Answer knockout questions (work authorization, years of experience, licenses, location) accurately and completely. That is where real automatic rejection happens.
  • Put the time you saved into a referral or a direct note to the hiring manager. A human introduction beats any scanner optimization.

Mainstream applicant tracking systems parse and search resumes. They do not auto-reject them over margins, fonts or layout, and the '75% rejected' statistic comes from a defunct vendor's 2012 sales pitch. The reel's '40 criteria' warning is the lead-in to RezPass.com, an AI resume builder shown in the closing frames.

Confidence
High
Posted by
a career-content creator who posts remote-work and job-search tips under #careerhound (~58k views on this reel); reel sent to Buddy Thu, Sep 24, 2026, ~12:48 PM

See the original claim →

We test hype for free. We build the real thing for a living.

Thirty minutes, no pitch — and you'll leave with something useful either way.

Book a call with Todd or start with the free Business Checkup →

The Verdict Weekly

Three verdicts every Friday. Free forever, unsubscribe anytime, no spam — that would be ironic.

© Schreier Group · schreiergroup.com · See a wild AI claim? Drop it here and we'll test it.