WONJA
For employers and recruiters

Evaluate demonstrated capability, not just résumé claims.

Wonja helps hiring teams define what a clinical research role requires, review practical evidence and compare candidates against the same capability domains and rubric.

What changes for your team

Four things you can do differently.

Define readiness before reviewing candidates

Agree the domains and rubric version the role needs, then read every candidate against them.

Compare the same domains consistently

Each shortlist is read against one framework instead of a different document per person.

See strengths and gaps with context

Evidence shows which tasks were completed, how they were scored and what remains unproven.

Keep the evidence trail with the decision

Rubric version, evidence state and review notes stay attached to the hiring file.

Who this is for

Three views of the same evidence.

Recruiters

Identify stronger evidence of role readiness before shortlist decisions are made.

Hiring managers

Compare candidates against the capability domains the role actually requires.

Workforce and learning teams

Identify capability gaps across a team and direct development where it is needed.

Reviewing candidates

Two ways to read the same shortlist.

Today

  • Readiness is inferred from job titles and years served.
  • Course completion stands in for demonstrated skill.
  • Each reviewer applies a slightly different bar.
  • The reasoning behind a decision is hard to reconstruct later.

With Wonja

  • The role's capability domains are agreed before review.
  • Candidates are read on practical work they completed.
  • One rubric version applies across the shortlist.
  • The evidence and review notes stay with the decision.
How evidence review works

Four steps, applied the same way each time.

  1. 01

    Define the role

    Agree the capability domains and rubric version the role requires.

  2. 02

    Review casebooks and domains

    Read the practical work a candidate completed, domain by domain.

  3. 03

    Compare consistently

    Every candidate is read against the same framework, not against a different document each time.

  4. 04

    Document the decision

    Keep the rubric version, evidence state and review notes with the hiring file.

Evidence review

What a hiring team sees.

A target role, the rubric it is read against and the evidence each candidate produced inside Wonja.

Target role and evidence

Illustrative demo data

Clinical Research Coordinator

CRC competency framework v2.1, Rubric CRC-R4
Candidate AReviewed
Target-role alignment83% demonstrated
Strengths
  • Consent conversations
  • Visit sequencing
Still to close

Safety reporting timelines

4 casebooks completedWonja Verified, CRC pathway
Candidate BIn review
Target-role alignment64% demonstrated
Strengths
  • Data quality and query handling
  • Safety documentation
Still to close

Participant-facing conduct

3 casebooks completedEvidence in progress

A Passport summarises evidence produced inside Wonja. Illustrative demo data.

Where Wonja fits

Four modules, one evidence chain.

Wonja Labs

Role-specific practical assessment. Casebooks, rubrics and human review.

Explore Labs

Wonja Passport

A portable record summarising evidence produced inside Wonja.

See the Passport

Wonja Talent

Evidence-led candidate discovery and introductions.

See Talent

Wonja Intelligence

Workforce capability reporting. Coming later.

Coming later
Trust and limits

What the evidence is, and what it is not.

Published rubrics

The criteria used to score work are documented.

Versioned frameworks

Every record carries the framework version applied.

Documented human review

An assessor reviews work before any record is issued.

Live status for Wonja records

A Wonja-issued record shows its current state at the time you look.

Wonja does not validate unrelated certificates, prior employment or professional licences. Records cover work completed inside Wonja. Look up a Wonja-issued record.

Next step

See the evidence against your own role.

We will walk through a target role, the rubric behind it and how candidate evidence is compared.