EMPLOYER RESEARCH · REPOSTED JOB ADS A repost is evidence that an advertisement appeared again. It does not alone establish a new hiring request, another person to hire or difficulty filling the role. Compare employer and platform identifiers, dates, role details and current status. Record what remains unknown before treating the company as a recruitment opportunity. 10 October 2026 · Manual review file Four observations do not mean four vacancies. **Entirely fictional example:** Poyraz Automation advertises a PLC commissioning engineer role in Ankara. The organization, pages, identifiers, dates and statements below are invented. PY-214 is the employer’s request number; B-701 and B-844 are identifiers on an unnamed fictional board. No headcount is stated. The example does not assert that the board uses Dayforce or its refresh schedule. Original chronology: retain what was known at each inspection Observed on | Source and displayed date | Identifiers and change | Conclusion available at that time 2 October 2026 | Employer role page; explicitly says originally published 1 October. | PY-214; PLC commissioning engineer, Ankara. No number of hires stated. | One visible employer request. Current headcount and agency support remain unconfirmed. 3 October 2026 | Board listing; displays 3 October. | B-701 links to PY-214 with the same role and location. | A board advertisement for the observed request. Do not add another vacancy from the extra channel. 9 October 2026 | Another board listing; displays “today” on 9 October. | B-844 still links to PY-214; role and location unchanged. | A different board ID and date. They do not establish a new employer request, growth or a failed hire. 10 October 2026 | Current employer page now explicitly says future opportunities / candidate pool. | PY-214 remains visible. The current statement does not specify a presently open position or a hiring count. | Update the record to an explicitly stated future pool. Do not present it as a confirmed current vacancy or an urgent agency brief. This is a teaching chronology, not a measured repost cycle or a real company check. The 10 October statement was not known at the earlier inspections; do not rewrite their evidence as though it was. The record contains two distinct board listing IDs and one visible employer request family. The number of actual vacancies is unknown. The later pool statement changes the current classification; it does not prove that no hiring ever happened or that all similar advertisements are pools. Write the next check without inventing the cause. Completed fictional review on 10 October 2026 Field | Recorded value Employer / role / location | Poyraz Automation / PLC commissioning engineer / Ankara; all fictional. Evidence history | Four inspections, 2–10 October. Two board IDs B-701 and B-844 link to visible employer request PY-214. Dates | Employer states original publication 1 October. Board display dates are 3 and 9 October. Our first observation is 2 October. Latest direct-source statement | Future opportunities / candidate pool, observed 10 October. No current hiring count stated. New requisition / actual vacancies | A new requisition is not established by the board change. Actual vacancy count is unknown. Growth / difficulty / agency acceptance | Not established. No claim of new headcount, failed hiring, urgency, budget or acceptance of agency proposals. Research decision | Keep the history in the employer record; hold the claim of a current recruitment opportunity for this role. Next evidence and review trigger | Recheck when the employer publishes a specific current request or supplies a relevant clarification. Record its date and the source. What new evidence would change the record? A current employer statement confirming a distinct request and its hiring scope could support a new-request conclusion. Its headcount, replacement versus growth, and acceptance of external support still need their own evidence. A further board refresh alone does not resolve these fields. If there is an appropriate existing conversation, ask the unresolved question: “Does PY-214 describe a current opening or a pool for future roles?” Do not open with “Your repeated adverts show you cannot fill this role.” Respect a stated no-agencies instruction and the employer’s designated process; an advert is not an invitation to submit candidates or a confirmed service order. Use the evidence to choose the next action. Manual decisions for different observed facts Observed facts | Bounded conclusion | Next action New board date or ID; same visible employer request and unchanged work. | Another advertisement or version; a new request is unconfirmed. | Keep the history together for review. Check the direct source and avoid increasing the vacancy count. Employer number missing; similar title and text. | Possibly related advertisements; identity unresolved. | Keep both sources and dates. Compare the work and request employer clarification where appropriate. Responsibilities, contract or location change materially. | A material change is observed; its cause and request identity remain uncertain. | Save both versions and identify whether this is an edit, multi-site role or distinct request. Employer explicitly confirms a separate current request. | A distinct request is confirmed within the statement’s scope. | Verify hiring count, replacement versus growth and the route for any external support separately. Current employer page explicitly describes a future candidate pool. | Future pool; a currently open position is not established. | Hold the current-vacancy claim. Review if a specific opening is later announced. Employer explicitly says the role is closed; board still appears active. | Direct-source closure conflicts with a visible copy. | Record the closure and check date. Hold reliance on the board copy; do not infer the reason for closure. Current opening confirmed; agency acceptance not addressed. | Hiring need is supported; an agency brief is unconfirmed. | Review the designated process and external-support position before treating it as a sales opportunity. These are practical interpretations of the supplied facts, not an automated fraud model or universal ATS rules. A long-running advert does not alone prove failure, turnover or deception. A new employer request can replace a departing employee rather than expand headcount. Several people can be recruited under one request. None of these interpretations can be selected from a refreshed date alone. BLANK OBSERVATION ROW · ADD A NEW ROW FOR EACH INSPECTION Observed date/time and source timezone if known: [ ] Source type and page URL: [ ] Actual employer, role and location: [ ] Employer request ID (unknown if unavailable): [ ] Platform listing ID: [ ] Explicit employer original publication date and source (unknown if unavailable): [ ] Displayed date label and value: [ ] Our first observation date: [ ] Original current-status statement: [ ] Role/contract/location/ID change since earlier observation: [ ] Earlier source inspected and any contradiction: [ ] Conclusion supported by this observation and its limits: [ ] BLANK REVIEW RECORD Reviewer and decision date: [ ] Related sources/listing IDs/employer request: [ ] Advertisement record count (visible records only): [ ] New requisition (confirmed/unconfirmed/unresolved) and evidence: [ ] Current status (specific opening/future pool/closed/unresolved) and evidence: [ ] Number of hires (explicit sourced statement or unknown): [ ] New headcount growth or replacement? (evidence or unknown): [ ] Approved budget and service-purchase authority (evidence or unknown): [ ] Agency support acceptance and designated process (evidence or unknown): [ ] Explicit no-agencies statement / candidate-submission process, if stated: [ ] Provisional research decision and unresolved question: [ ] Next check, owner and review trigger: [ ] Write unknown when a field is unavailable or unconfirmed. Do not replace original publication with first observation. Do not count a new listing ID as a new vacancy or person to hire. This file contains fictional teaching examples and a blank manual form; it is not an actual employer check, fraud diagnosis, automatic tracker or Anivo import format. Respect the employer’s designated process and any no-agencies statement. Sources and access notes Checked on 10 October 2026. Relevant primary text was inspected; platform scope, research dates and unresolved company facts remain separate. Dayforce · Create Evergreen Postings https://help.dayforce.com/r/documents/Recruiting-Guide/Create-Evergreen-Postings Recruiting Guide R2026.2.0, updated 12 August 2026. Complete feature text reviewed. Client-site refresh under a requisition; eQuest external-board postings excluded. Not an Anivo capability or the mechanism of our fictional board. Google Search Central · JobPosting https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/job-posting Relevant datePosted, identifier, validThrough and expired-job instructions reviewed. Publisher fields and search policies, not independent employer confirmation. Cedefop · Online job vacancies and skills analysis (2019) https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4172_en.pdf Full PDF accessed; printed pages 9–12, 21 and 24–25 inspected. Early seven-country European system; not Turkish 2026 prevalence or company-level hiring intent. Rudy Arthur · UK job market during COVID-19 (2021) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251431 Published 27 May 2021. Full-text methods, relevant results and discussion reviewed. Reed.co.uk, 11 January 2019–11 January 2021; observational UK setting, not an agency or Anivo success test. Onur Emre · Ghost Ads (2025) https://www.calismatoplum.org/en/makale/ghost-ads-a-source-of-precariousness-for-job-seekers/ Çalışma ve Toplum 4(87), 1703–1730. Relevant theory, evidence and conclusion sections inspected in the full issue PDF; conceptual analysis, no original Turkish prevalence sample.