Pinpoint

Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
ScreeningATS-integratedScreeningSourcing

HireAIScore rates Pinpoint 57 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed July 17, 2026. Pinpoint ranks 13 of 160 vendors rated in Screening AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 20 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Pinpoint — 18 with a cited source, 2 recording that nothing was located.

Some company details provided by Pinpoint · updated October 6, 2026

Score breakdown

Pinpoint, criterion by criterion

Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.

Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.

  1. Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Weight 20% · avg 49

    72

    +14.4

  2. Bias Audit Transparency

    Weight 18% · avg 41

    42

    +7.6

  3. FRIA Support

    Weight 15% · avg 31

    38

    +5.7

  4. Data Governance Disclosure

    Weight 15% · avg 53

    68

    +10.2

  5. Human Oversight Design

    Weight 12% · avg 56

    64

    +7.7

  6. Post-Market Monitoring

    Weight 12% · avg 40

    52

    +6.2

  7. Customer Documentation

    Weight 8% · avg 58

    66

    +5.3

Total weighted score

57.1(rounded to 57 for display)

Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 160 Screening AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.

Strongest criterion

Article 11 Technical Documentation

72raw / 100

Contributes 14.4 to the total. 72 against a 49 category average.

Weakest criterion

FRIA Support

38raw / 100

Contributes 5.7 to the total. 38 against a 31 category average.

Cited evidence

The evidence behind the score

Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.

Download diligence record

Evidence ledger

Items
20
Documentation
13
Public statement
5
Absence
2
With a source URL
18 of 20
Source hostnames
2
Fewest items
2
FRIA Support

These figures measure how thoroughly Pinpoint was reviewed, not how Pinpoint performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.

Article 11 Technical Documentation

3 items72
  • DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    ISO/IEC 42001 certification (auditor Sensiba, Q3 2025) scoped to Pinpoint's AI Management System as both AI provider and user, with an AI Governance Council and AI Impact Assessments tracking fairness, accuracy, reliability and accountability.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/insights/pinpoint-iso-42001-certified/

  • DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    Public AI-approach page documents model providers (OpenAI, Affinda), the 'Arti' AI microservice, inference-time data flows, evaluations before release, and the principle that every AI output is explainable and auditable.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/security-privacy/pinpoint-ai-approach

  • Public statementCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    Stated design principle 'If we can't explain it, we won't build it' with match scores exposing per-criterion reasoning ('There's no black box').

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/pinpoint-ai

Bias Audit Transparency

3 items42
  • Public statementCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    Pinpoint states it relies on OpenAI's bias-mitigation research and is 'actively reviewing third-party providers for independent bias auditing'- i.e. an independent audit is planned, not yet performed or published.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/security-privacy/pinpoint-ai-approach

  • DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    ISO 42001 AI Impact Assessments internally track fairness/accuracy, but this is an internal management-system control, not an independent or publicly downloadable bias audit.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/insights/pinpoint-iso-42001-certified/

  • AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    No NYC LL144-style bias audit summary was found on pinpointhq.com or in the ACLU crowd-sourced LL144 bias-audit tracker; no auditor, date, selection-rate or impact-ratio metrics are published.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

FRIA Support

2 items38
  • Public statementCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    Pinpoint maps its human-in-the-loop architecture to EU AI Act human-oversight requirements for high-risk systems and to NYC LL144/Illinois HB 3773/California FEHA/Colorado SB 24-205, and cites candidate-notification, disclosure and audit-log tooling - partial deployer framing.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/security-privacy/pinpoint-ai-approach

  • AbsenceCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    No Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (Art. 27) template, deployer FRIA workbook, or dedicated EU AI Act deployer-obligation guide was found on the Pinpoint site or via search.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

Data Governance Disclosure

3 items68

Human Oversight Design

3 items64
  • DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    In-product explainability: when a candidate receives a match score, users can open it to see why they scored against the set criteria; AI 'surfaces the insight, people make the call' and never makes the final decision.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/pinpoint-ai

  • DocumentationCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    All AI features are explicitly opt-in and never on by default with granular per-feature enable/disable controls; AI 'must never be the final decision-maker', supported by audit logs and anonymized/redacted early-stage screening.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/security-privacy/pinpoint-ai-approach

  • Public statementCaptured Jul 17, 2026

    Product page states 'A person decides, every time'- a human is required at each decision point and every AI output is explainable and auditable.

    https://www.pinpointhq.com/ai-applicant-tracking-system

Post-Market Monitoring

3 items52

Customer Documentation

3 items66

Editorial notes

Company overview

Pinpoint is a Jersey-headquartered (St Helier) applicant tracking system founded in 2017 by Tom Hacquoil, Tom Luce and Bill Rogers and operated under the Infuse Group. It serves 500+ in-house talent teams across 50+ countries with customers split roughly between UK/Europe and the US, and layers eight AI features (AI Match Score, AI Candidate Filters, Anonymized Screening, AI Notetaker, AI Hiring Copilot, AI Candidate Companion, AI Criteria Checklist and an MCP server) on top of a core ATS. In late 2025 it became one of the first ATSs to achieve ISO/IEC 42001 certification for its AI management system.

Regulatory exposure

As an ATS whose AI Match Score and screening features rank and score candidates, Pinpoint falls within scope of NYC Local Law 144 (as an AEDT provider/deployer tool), the EU AI Act's high-risk employment provisions, and Illinois HB 3773, Colorado SB 24-205 and California FEHA. Pinpoint publicly positions its mandatory human-in-the-loop design as aligning with GDPR Article 22 and EU AI Act human-oversight requirements and provides candidate-notification, disclosure and audit-log tooling, but it has not published an independent LL144-style bias audit and offers no FRIA template. Its ISO 42001 certification covers internal AI governance and fairness monitoring (AI Impact Assessments) rather than an external, downloadable fairness audit.

Path to a higher score

The clearest gap is bias-audit transparency: commissioning and publicly posting an independent, intersectional bias audit (e.g. Warden AI, BABL AI, Holistic AI) with named auditor and date - ideally across two consecutive years - would move Pinpoint out of the 'referenced but none downloadable' tier. Publishing an EU AI Act Article 27 FRIA template / deployer-obligation guide, a per-feature instructions-for-use or model-card pack, and a public sub-processor list and standard DPA would lift the Article 11, FRIA and data-governance scores further.

Regulatory frame

What applies to screening AI.

Treated as high-risk under Annex III §4 when the screening output is decisive. EU AI Act Article 13 transparency obligations apply; deployers must give candidates a way to contest.

Keep reading

All screening vendorsHow this score is builtAnnex IV section-by-section: what AI hiring vendors must documentWhat makes a defensible NYC LL 144 bias audit

Compare

Pinpoint against its nearest-scoring peers.

The closest scores in Screening AI, side by side.

Build any comparison

Ranking

Others rated in Screening AI

Ranked 13 of 160 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.

  1. #10Tezi58F
  2. #11Findem58F
  3. #12Dayforce57F
  4. #13PinpointThis profile57F
  5. #14Bryq57F
  6. #15Apriora (Alex)57F
All screening vendors

Conflicts of interest

No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.

Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.