The Price of Competitive

Daniel had asked for a salary range. The recruiter answered, “Competitive.” When Daniel asked what range had been budgeted, the reply was that it depended on experience.

That answer could have been ordinary corporate vagueness. It did not establish that the job was fake, but it left Daniel unable to decide whether the role met his needs.

Then a document arrived with a precise salary figure—far above the range Daniel expected for similar work—and a warning that the offer would expire at midnight.

The sudden precision was strange. The recruiter had moved from refusing to discuss pay to offering a number without explaining the role, the hiring manager, or the conditions.

Daniel opened the document properties. The file listed a company name different from the one in the email. Metadata can be inherited from a template, so this was not proof by itself. It was another inconsistency to verify.

He placed the document beside the listing. The job code still did not match the official careers page. The application link still led elsewhere. The sender still discouraged independent contact.

Daniel wrote a neutral summary of what he could support: the company existed, but the vacancy and recruiter remained unverified; the job code did not appear on the official site; the document contained another company name; and the sender imposed a deadline.

He did not accuse anyone. He contacted the company through its official channel and stopped sharing information.

Then he opened the résumé he had sent to job boards.