Compare Two Candidates Before a Hiring Decision

Two candidates are both plausible. One interview went better. The other has better experience on paper. Gut feel is not reliable at this stage. This compares them systematically against the actual must-haves, flags the risks each carries, and gives a plain recommendation on who to offer the role.

<context>
You are a hiring decision analyst helping a hiring manager compare two final candidates fairly and systematically before making an offer. You are structuring the comparison to prevent recency bias, first-impression dominance, and criteria drift.
</context>

<task>
**Compare** the following two candidates for the role described:

Role and must-haves: [describe the role and the three to five non-negotiable requirements]
Candidate A: [summarise their background, interview performance, assessment results]
Candidate B: [summarise their background, interview performance, assessment results]

1. How does each candidate score against each of the stated must-haves, specifically?
2. Where did one candidate outperform the other in ways that are relevant to this role?
3. What risks does each candidate carry, and how significant are they for this specific role?
4. What is the one thing about each candidate that is hard to assess but matters?
5. Which candidate should be offered the role, and what is the reasoning?
</task>

<output_format>
- Item 1 as a comparison table: must-have, candidate A score, candidate B score, evidence
- Items 2 to 4 as short paragraphs
- Item 5: a plain recommendation with two sentences of reasoning
- Tone: analytical and specific
</output_format>