About us

We stand between a person
and a job they want.

ApplicantSpace is a product of Next Chapter Skills Private Limited, an AI product studio in Bangalore. We write software that helps someone apply for work — and, more recently, software that scores them for the institution placing them. The second thing is why this page reads the way it does.

Next ChapterNext Chapter®Next Chapter Skills Private Limited · Owner and operator of ApplicantSpace · Bangalore, India · est. 2025
2025
founded
Next Chapter Skills Private Limited — the company that owns ApplicantSpace
11
people
One room in Bangalore, mostly remote
2
kinds of customer
People looking for work, and the institutions placing them
0
employers pay us to rank anyone
No sponsored placements, ever
The uncomfortable part

Two customers. One of them
is being judged.

A candidate wants a coach. A placement cell wants a ranking. We sell to both, and the same model produces both. Pretending there is no tension in that would be the first dishonest thing we did.

When a candidate is on the screen
It feels like
A coach who is on your side, and says so in the second person.
A score is
Formative — a gap you can close before Thursday.
We never
Gatekeep, judge or shame. No leaderboard, no rank against your classmates.
When a reviewer is on the screen
It feels like
An evidence pack a reviewer can defend to the candidate.
A score is
Comparative — a ranking to read, with the transcript one click away.
We never
Auto-decide anything about a person. The product cannot, not just does not.

Where the two disagree, the candidate wins. That is easy to write on a page, so we made it a set of things that are missing from the product on purpose.

Five things we will not build

Promises are cheap.
Missing buttons are not.

Each of these is a decision someone on the team has to re-argue every time a customer asks for the convenient version. So far we have said no every time. The mechanism is written next to the promise so you can check whether we kept it.

01
No score decides anything about a person.
HowThere is no automatic advance and no automatic decline. A reviewer clicks Advance, Hold or Decline on every single row, or nothing happens to that candidate. A line saying so is fixed to the bottom of the shortlist and cannot be dismissed.
02
The harmful action is slower than the helpful one.
HowBulk advance exists. Bulk decline does not — not greyed out, not behind a confirm dialog. Absent. Declining someone is one candidate, one reviewer, one click at a time.
03
A camera is off until an institution turns it on and tells you first.
HowCamera and screenshare are two separate settings an admin must switch on, each one appears in the consent screen in plain language before anything records, and every screening has an unscored practice run.
04
We do not invent a fact about you.
HowIf your evidence does not support a claim, the resume leaves the gap in and the interview brief marks it with a warning. You will never have to defend a sentence you did not say.
05
A score that is unsure says so, loudly.
HowA wide confidence band renders as a warning that asks the reviewer to go read the transcript. We would rather look uncertain than be quietly wrong about someone.
How we are measured

What we publish is what
could be used against us.

Anyone can report accuracy. These are the four things an unhappy candidate, a placement head or a regulator would actually ask for. Three of them are mechanisms you can check in the product. The fourth is a count we do not have yet, and it says so rather than borrowing a number from somewhere else.

3 runs
how a score is checked against itself
Every institutional transcript is scored three times and the spread between the highest and the lowest is published on the scorecard. A gap of five points or more renders as a warning telling the reviewer to go and read the transcript.
pinned
what produced the number
The rubric version is stamped on a session when it starts and never re-read, alongside the model version and the timestamp. Re-publish a rubric and old scores keep the one they were actually graded under.
no code path
for a decision without a person
A reviewer clicks Advance, Hold or Decline on every row, or nothing happens to that candidate. Bulk decline is not greyed out or hidden behind a confirm — it does not exist. This is an absence of code, not a policy.
not yet
challenges, and changes
This is where the count of candidates who asked for a human re-review will go, and how many scores changed. Institutional screening has not been switched on for anyone yet, so the honest number is none — and we would rather print that than a figure nobody could check.
If a score affected you

Three ways to argue with us.

You should not have to find these. They are on the about page because this is where people end up when something has gone wrong and they want to know who they are dealing with.

Ask for a human re-review
Write to privacy@applicantspace.com with the role you were screened for. A person reads your full transcript against the rubric — not the score, the transcript. In-product, one click from your evidence pack, is being built.
Answered in 5 working days
Get your data, or delete it
Settings › Privacy, or write to privacy@applicantspace.com. Deletion takes the recordings and the transcripts with it, not just the account.
Completed within 30 days
Talk to a person, not a form
A named human replies. If you are a student and your institution is the one you have a problem with, say so and we will not route it through them.
First reply in 1 working day

Scores rank candidates for a reviewer to read. They do not decide anything. No candidate advances or is declined without a person clicking. That sentence is fixed to the bottom of our reviewer product, and it is the sentence to hold us to.