Job Requisition Approval: Which Version Should Recruiting Operations Use?

A research-backed control model for keeping sourcing and scheduling tied to the employer-approved job request.

Published September 18, 2026 · 8 sources

Research question

When a hiring manager, finance reviewer, and recruiter circulate different versions of a job requisition, which record should a Philippines-based recruiting coordinator use for sourcing, outreach, and interview administration? The operational problem is not simply finding the newest attachment. A later file can still be a draft, while an older version can remain the last authorized instruction. Role title, location, employment status, reporting line, compensation range, minimum qualifications, interview panel, and target date can each change on a different path. This study asks what evidence is sufficient to identify the approved operating version without letting an administrative support role approve headcount, rewrite selection criteria, or choose between conflicting business owners.

Methodology and source scope

We conducted a qualitative synthesis of current official guidance from the EEOC, OFCCP, NIST, GAO, and the National Archives. EEOC materials inform consistent hiring practices and employment-record handling. OFCCP guidance shows why covered contractors need defined applicant and requisition records, though coverage and duties vary. NIST contributes privacy and security governance principles, GAO contributes authorization and control concepts, and National Archives guidance contributes record integrity. We mapped those principles to a requisition event chain, then challenged it with an urgent replacement, a changed location, a revised qualification, a withdrawn budget approval, and two simultaneous drafts. This is workflow research, not legal advice or a statement that every cited rule applies to every employer.

Facts, analysis, and inference

The cited sources establish broad facts: hiring practices should be applied consistently, sensitive information needs governance, and reliable controls depend on documented responsibility and usable records. They do not prescribe the exact requisition ledger described here. Our analysis is that version, authority, and effective time must be separate fields. Our inference is that a coordinator can safely act when one record links the approved business request to the current recruiting instructions and identifies unresolved changes. Uncertainty remains when approvals occur in informal channels, when local law changes required content, or when the employer has no written delegation. In those cases, the honest state is approval unresolved, not approved by recency.

The minimum approval chain

A reviewable chain begins with a stable requisition identifier and records the requesting owner, business reason category, job profile reference, worker type, location, reporting owner, approved range or range authority, recruiting stages, required reviewers, requested start window, and budget or headcount decision. Each revision needs a version identifier, author, timestamp, changed fields, reason, and named approver. The active version should point to the evidence of approval rather than copy a vague approved label from another tracker. If finance approves headcount but HR has not approved a changed qualification, the ledger should show split authority. One partial approval must not silently authorize every field.

Why the latest file can be wrong

File modification time measures storage activity, not decision authority. A coordinator may download a document, convert its format, correct punctuation, or add interview availability after approval. Those actions can make a file newer without changing the authorized job. Conversely, a manager may approve a change in a system whose exported document still shows an earlier timestamp. The control should therefore compare stable version identifiers and approval events, not filenames such as final or final-two. When a changed field could alter who is sourced or screened, pause new action at the affected stage and route the difference. Already completed activity should remain visible rather than being rewritten to look as if the new criteria always applied.

Coordinator permissions and decision boundary

A Philippines-based coordinator can create the requisition record from an approved template, check required fields, compare a proposed revision with the active version, link supporting approvals, publish approved scheduling details, and flag work performed under a superseded instruction. The coordinator should not create headcount, select a compensation range, decide worker classification, add a preferred qualification, resolve a conflict between HR and a hiring manager, or infer approval from silence. They may correct a clerical error only through the employer-defined correction rule. Every exception needs the missing decision, authorized owner, permitted holding action, and next checkpoint. This keeps fast administrative support from becoming an invisible hiring-policy layer.

A practical version-state model

Use states that describe evidence: draft, submitted for named review, partially approved, approved but not effective, active, superseded, withdrawn, and closed. Avoid ready when it could mean complete fields, available budget, or permission to source. Record field-level differences when the effect is material. A title punctuation correction may not require the same route as a location, qualification, or worker-type change, but that distinction must come from a written employer rule. Link candidates and outreach batches to the version used. If a version changes during sourcing, the hiring owner decides whether earlier candidates remain in scope; the coordinator records and executes that decision without independently re-screening people.

Control test and measurements

Test the model with five redacted cases: a duplicate requisition, an approved replacement with an unapproved range, a location change after outreach, a qualification change after interviews begin, and a withdrawn opening with scheduled candidates. Give the evidence to a second reviewer and ask which version was active at each event, what work was permitted, and who owned each unresolved choice. Useful measures include actions linked to an active version, unresolved field conflicts, time awaiting a named owner, and corrective actions after supersession. Do not rank coordinators by raw throughput because a properly paused requisition can require more control work than a clean one. Publish definitions, denominators, exclusions, and the review window.

Implementation sequence

Begin with one active requisition and inventory every place where its instructions appear. Choose the employer-controlled system of record, assign field-level approvers, and define which changes stop sourcing or scheduling. Migrate only the current authorized version and preserve older evidence through controlled links. Train the coordinator and backup on two known conflicts, then require the hiring owner to review the first complete audit trail. After the pilot, compare candidate communications and interview activity with the version ledger. Fix any unlabeled copy or undocumented approval before expanding. A weekly review should focus on open conflicts and superseded work, not merely on how many requisitions moved forward.

Privacy, access, and retention

The coordination ledger needs job and authorization data, not private manager commentary about candidates or employees. Limit access to the people who approve or administer the requisition. Candidate records should remain linked by approved identifiers rather than copied into the approval log. Retention must follow the employer’s applicable policy and legal obligations; OFCCP requirements matter only where coverage and circumstances make them relevant. Preserve superseded versions when required to explain actions, but do not keep uncontrolled email copies merely because they are convenient. A record hold, complaint, audit, or investigation can change ordinary disposition, so the qualified owner must decide those exceptions.

Limitations and uncertainty

Employers use different applicant-tracking, finance, HR, and document systems. Approval authority depends on organization design, jurisdiction, contracts, and regulatory coverage. A complete ledger does not prove that criteria are lawful, job related, inclusive, affordable, or strategically sound. Timestamps can reflect integration delays, and electronic approval can be delegated or compromised. Small samples may miss inconsistent treatment. The model also cannot decide whether a changed requirement should apply to people already in process. It makes the decision path visible and reproducible. HR, finance, legal, and hiring owners remain accountable for the underlying authorization and selection rules.

Evidence-led conclusion

Recruiting operations should use the version with traceable field-level authority and effective status, not whichever file looks newest. A stable requisition identifier, visible revisions, separate approvers, and candidate-to-version links let an employer reconstruct what instruction governed each action. Human Resources Outsourced can support this work through a Philippines-based coordinator who checks completeness, maintains the ledger, schedules approved steps, and escalates conflicts. The employer retains control of headcount, budget, qualifications, compensation, classification, and candidate decisions. The recommended first step is a pilot on one opening with one primary approver and a documented fallback, followed by an independent reconstruction before the control expands.

Sources

Candidate sourcing with approved criteria

Use a bounded sourcing lane that keeps shortlist and selection decisions with the employer. Review the service scope.

Related Research

Conditional Job Offers: Preserve Version, Conditions, and Acceptance Evidence

Employment Background Screens: Design Status Handoffs Without Making the Decision

Employment Reference Checks: Preserve Authorization and Response Provenance