Step 5 — Reality check (optional)

An independent audit of the final salary table from Step 4. Claude asks before running — it only proceeds if you confirm. If you confirm, Claude then asks whether to use the deep-reasoner subagent (Opus, high effort) for higher reasoning accuracy. If you decline, the step runs with your current model.

Flow 

flowchart TD
  Start([Step 5 begins]) --> RunQ{Run reality check?}
  RunQ -->|no| Skip([Step skipped])
  RunQ -->|yes| OpusQ{Use Opus for\nhigher accuracy?}
  OpusQ -->|yes| DeepReasoner[Route to deep-reasoner\nOpus / high effort]
  OpusQ -->|no| CurrentModel[Run with your\ncurrent model]
  DeepReasoner --> C1
  CurrentModel --> C1[1. Candidate positioning\nDraft career ladder for this role\nWait for confirmation before proceeding]
  C1 --> Confirm{Career ladder\nconfirmed?}
  Confirm -->|no| EditLadder[Adjust ladder per feedback]
  EditLadder --> Confirm
  Confirm -->|yes| C2[2. Framework calibration review\nIs the framework conservative · calibrated\nor inflated?]
  C2 --> C3[3. Country-by-country reality check\nSafe positioning · Stretch positioning\nrecruiter comfort · overseas hiring realism]
  C3 --> C4[4. Framework recommendation\nIs Safe / Stretch philosophy still appropriate?]
  C4 --> Recal{Evidence supports\nrecalibration?}
  Recal -->|yes| Revise[5. Recalibrate — revise affected countries\nGenerate revised table]
  Recal -->|no| Confirm2[Confirm existing framework\nis appropriate — no changes]
  Revise --> Done([Results delivered])
  Confirm2 --> Done

What it reads

  • All salary data, adjustment figures, and the final table from Steps 1 through 4
  • profile.md — used to assess candidate positioning and career level

The four checks

1. Candidate positioning

Claude drafts the realistic career ladder for your field (e.g. Mid, Senior, Lead, Staff, Principal) and determines your likely current level and target role level. It waits for your confirmation or edits before using the ladder in the analysis. Compensation is benchmarked against the target role, not the highest historical responsibility.

2. Framework calibration review

Assesses whether the overall salary framework is conservative, recruiter-safe, appropriately calibrated, slightly inflated, or heavily inflated.

Evaluates legitimate compensation drivers (experience, technical depth, leadership scope, business impact, domain expertise) separately from potential inflation sources (premium employer weighting, multinational bias, niche specialist premium, higher-level title interpretation, AI optimism bias).

3. Country-by-country reality check

For each country, evaluates:

  • Safe positioning — percentile band and classification (conservative to top-tier)
  • Stretch positioning — classification (realistic stretch to international remote premium)
  • Recruiter comfort — how likely is this to convert interviews?
  • Sponsorship realism — does the number work for visa threshold purposes?
  • Overseas hiring realism — adjusted for your profile as an international candidate

Uses approximate percentile bands (50–60%, 60–70%, etc.) — no false precision.

4. Framework recommendation

Determines whether the Safe/Stretch philosophy, employer segmentation, and percentile assumptions remain appropriate. If improvements are recommended, explains what assumption caused the issue and what structural change is recommended.

Recalibration

Only if the evidence genuinely supports it:

  • Affected countries are revised upward or downward
  • A revised table is generated using the same format as Step 4
  • Priority is given to recruiter comfort, interview conversion, sponsorship realism, and realistic overseas positioning

If recalibration is not supported, the existing framework is explicitly confirmed as appropriate and no revised table is generated.

Claude Compass — MIT License