Sometimes several. An applicant tracking system parses it, a language model summarises it, and a recruiter reads that summary. By the time a human sees anything, your CV has already been through two machines that had no way to ask you a question.
Almost everything people are told about writing a CV was written for the human. This page is about the machines — what they can see, what they silently drop, and what survives being compressed into three lines.
Not worse — worthless as a signal. Anyone can now produce a polished, well-structured, confidently worded CV in about thirty seconds, for nothing. Recruiters know this. So the things a CV used to prove — that you can write, that you can organise a thought, that you cared enough to make it neat — have quietly stopped proving anything at all.
When everyone's document is excellent, an excellent document tells a reader nothing.
What has become scarce is the opposite thing: a claim that can actually be checked. That is the whole reason the Xpert CV exists, and it is why we spend as much effort on what a CV may not say as on how it looks.
The trap this creates. The same tools that write your CV will happily invent the experience to fill it. It reads beautifully and it collapses in the first interview, because the person across the table asks one follow-up question. A generated CV is now the easiest thing in the world to produce and the most dangerous thing to send.
None of these are style preferences. Each one is something that changes whether information reaches a human being at all.
A parser extracts text. A photograph contains no text, so it contributes exactly zero to how you are read, matched or ranked. It is not neutral either — it costs you space at the top of page one, it is a common cause of layout mangling, and with a human reader it invites judgements that have nothing to do with the work.
Photographs are conventional on Indian CVs and we are not telling you that you are wrong. We are telling you what it does: send the version without a photo to any portal or system, and the version with one only when you are emailing a person who expects it.
This is the most common serious mistake on a modern CV. A bar filled four-fifths of the way is a picture. The machine reads the word next to it and nothing else — so a carefully rated skills section arrives as a bare list of nouns, and you never find out.
It is also an unevidenced self-rating, which is the thing every recruiter has learned to ignore. Replace the picture with a fact:
NegotiationNegotiation — led contract renewal across 14 distributorsA parser reads in a line across the page, not down a column. A two-column layout interleaves your skills sidebar into the middle of your job history — so a role's description arrives with three unrelated words dropped into it, and the whole entry reads as nonsense.
The same applies to text boxes and tables. Content inside them is frequently skipped altogether, which means a beautifully boxed "Key Achievements" panel can be entirely invisible. One column, top to bottom.
Many parsers ignore both entirely — they are page furniture. A phone number or an email address placed there can vanish completely, and a CV that cannot be replied to is worse than no CV. Contact details belong in the body of page one, in plain text.
A small telephone glyph next to a number is, to a machine, either nothing or a stray character. Label things in words — Email, Phone, Location. It looks less designed and it is read correctly, which is the only measure that matters here.
If your CV is a scan, a phone photo, or a PDF exported from one, it has no text layer. A parser opens it and finds nothing at all — not a weak match, nothing. This is far more common than people realise; a large share of CVs in circulation in India are scans.
Export directly from Word or Google Docs to PDF, or send the Word file. If all you have is a scan, our reader can still get your content out of it — but the employer's system almost certainly cannot.
Machines infer your career shape from dates. A role without them reads as a gap, and mixed formats — 2014-07 in one place and "July 2014" in another — produce parsing errors that turn into an unexplained hole in your history.
An AI will compress your CV into a few lines before a recruiter reads it. Generic responsibilities evaporate in that compression — "coordination with distributors for sales promotion" survives as nothing. What survives is specifics: numbers, scope, named outcomes.
White text on a white background, or a paragraph of job-description keywords in a tiny font at the bottom, is detected — and modern systems flag it rather than simply ignoring it. Being caught doing this ends the application and sometimes the relationship with that employer. Use the words that genuinely describe your work, in sentences a person would say out loud.
Follow all nine and you have a CV that reaches a human intact. That is worth doing and most CVs fail at it.
But it gets you to the same starting line as everyone else who used a tool this year — because the tools are good now, and they are free. Formatting is table stakes. It is not a differentiator, and anyone telling you their templates are the product is selling you the cheapest part of the problem.
The question that follows is the one this whole business is built on: when every CV is well-written, what makes a recruiter believe yours?
Nothing generated can produce the first line, because it requires an assessment somebody actually sat. That is what an Xpert CV adds on top of being machine-readable — and it is the only part of a CV that AI cannot manufacture.
Your Xpert CV is built to be read correctly by a machine — one column, no bars, no boxes, no photograph — and it marks which of your claims an independent assessment can back. Fifteen minutes gets you the evidence; the document follows from it.
Get started How the assessment works