A strong answer. “Nine at final round is actually good news about my sourcing and bad news about everything else, so pouring more candidates in would be the wrong fix and an expensive one — it costs those candidates their time too.

There are only about three causes. The bar is genuinely higher than the role as written, which means the job description and the compensation band are for a different job than the one being interviewed for. The panel is inconsistent — different interviewers testing different things and one person effectively holding a veto. Or the hiring manager doesn't actually want to hire, which happens more than people admit, usually because they have someone internal in mind or they're unsure about the headcount.

So I'd read the scorecards for all nine, side by side. That's the diagnosis. If the rejections cluster on one interviewer, it's a panel problem. If they cluster on a skill not in the job description, it's a definition problem. If the feedback is vague across the board — 'not quite the level' — that's the third cause and it's the hardest conversation.

Then I'd have that conversation directly with the hiring manager: 'We've now spent about sixty candidate-hours and forty of the panel's. I don't think the problem is supply. Can we write down what a hire looks like, specifically enough that I could recognise one?' Frequently that exercise itself resolves it.

And I'd check the market. If the band is at the 40th percentile for the skill, the strong candidates are declining before the final round and I'm only seeing the ones who couldn't get better offers.”