The Trust Gap · Supporting examples

Explore how the decisions work.

Matching, protection, portable work records and service economics. These are illustrative models with chosen inputs; the household research findings are in the report.

Start with the practical hiring example →

Optional matching example

How an extra skill record changes the shortlist

This example shows one narrow idea: evidence about the work can make another placement possible. It uses fictional workers and households to show the mechanics. 20

Model 2 The third choice a clear brief reveals Illustrative example · the same three workers and three households 20

Two side-by-side diagrams. Left: two compatible assignments, W1 to H1 and W2 to H2, with W3 unmatched. Right: three compatible assignments after the missing record is opened, adding W3 to H3.

Before · 2 live choices After · 3 live choices W1 W2 W3 H1 H2 H3 W1 W2 W3 H1 H2 H3
Data table
Compatible assignments before and after the missing record is opened
State Known edges Maximum pairs Assignment
Before W1–H1, W1–H2, W2–H2, W3–H2 2 W1–H1 · W2–H2
After W1–H1, W1–H2, W2–H2, W3–H2, W3–H3 3 W1–H1 · W2–H2 · W3–H3

One more skill opens one more match

Illustrative example · three workers, three households

W1 · meal W2 · cleaning W3 · flexible H1 · meals H2 · clean H3 · laundry 2 live choices
2compatible assignments before the missing record is opened
Before · known evidence 2 W1–H1 · W2–H2
After · record opened 3 W1–H1 · W2–H2 · W3–H3

The other side of the decision

The worker brings capability. The household brings duties, timing and conditions. Fit is a property of the pair.

  • Defined meal task and cleaning standard
  • Timing, rest and pay basis agreed before arrival
  • Open question: what happens if scope changes?
The useful next action is not “accept the score.” It is “ask the question this record cannot answer.”

Before you commit

Evidence reduces one risk, warranties another

Check skills before the hire. Agree the job and understand the protection available if the arrangement breaks down. 24

ScreeningAsk the relevant question while the choice is still open.
AgreementPut role, timing, rest, pay basis and exclusions on the table.
Arrival + onboardingConfirm the work, support and expectations on arrival.
OutcomeRecord what happened, including scope changes and remaining questions.
Model 3 Warranty exposure by placements per year Worked example · assumed replacement rate 20% · cost per replacement SAR 14,000–18,000 24

Bar chart of annual replacement-warranty exposure in Saudi riyals for 50, 100, 200 and 400 Philippine-corridor placements, showing a low bar at the SAR 14,000 cost and a high bar at SAR 18,000, each times a 20 percent modeled failure rate.

SAR 1.44m 0.72m 0 50 100 200 400 placements / year Low (SAR 14,000) High (SAR 18,000)
Data table
Annual warranty exposure at a 20 percent modeled failure rate
Placements / year Expected failures (20%) Low SAR (14,000) High SAR (18,000)
5010140,000180,000
10020280,000360,000
20040560,000720,000
400801,120,0001,440,000
Model 4 Evidence and protection cover different risks Skill evidence and formal employment protection serve different purposes. 24

Two-by-four matrix. Rows: skill mismatch, unpaid wages, worker leaves within 90 days, scope creep after arrival. Columns: named skill evidence, and Musaned protection. Skill mismatch is high for evidence and low for protection. Unpaid wages and early departure are low for evidence and high for protection. Scope creep is partial for both.

Named skill evidence Musaned protection Skill mismatch Unpaid wages Leaves within 90 days Scope creep High · answers the brief Low · does not test the task Low · does not pay the wage High · e-transfer from Jan 2026 Low · not a refund High · free replacement visa Partial · makes the task visible Partial · contract terms
Data table
Evidence versus protection by risk
Risk Named skill evidence Musaned protection Sources
Skill mismatch High Low 15
Unpaid wages Low High 5, 16
Worker leaves within 90 days Low High 3, 5
Scope creep after arrival Partial Partial 4, 15

Count the cost

When verification pays for itself

See how the cost of a check compares with the time and disruption it needs to save. Adjust the worked examples to explore the trade-off. 21

Model 5 Information value of the next check Worked example · illustrative value units 21

Line chart of net information value against check quality from 50 percent to 100 percent. Value is minus 10 at a useless check, 24 at 80 percent quality, and 50 at a perfect check. The line crosses zero between 60 and 70 percent.

50 0 -10 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% quality 24 at 80% Check quality (sensitivity = specificity)
Data table
Net EVSI by check quality in the A03 worked example
Quality (sens = spec) Net value (units)
0.50-10
0.60-2
0.7011
0.8024
0.9037
1.0050
Worked example

When does a check pay for itself?

Compare the check price with the risk and time it needs to save.

Adjust the inputs
Result3 percentage pointsThe check breaks even at a 3% reduction in residual loss.

A02 sensitivity table
Price / lossSAR 2,000SAR 5,000SAR 10,000
SAR 502.5 pp1.0 pp0.5 pp
SAR 1507.5 pp3.0 pp1.5 pp
SAR 30015.0 pp6.0 pp3.0 pp
Explore the other cost examples
Worked example

Is the next check worth doing?

A check has value when its result changes the best action, not because a favourable result is always a yes.

Adjust the inputs
Result24 unitsThe next check is worth 24 net value units in this worked example.

Worked example

Use the same record again

Create the record once, then update it when needed. Compare that cost with starting again for every household.

Adjust the inputs
Result46 averageThe same record is cheaper to reuse than to rebuild each time.

Worked example

Remove waste, do not move it

Created value includes less duplicated checking, less avoidable disruption, better use of existing ability and lower evidence-reuse cost.

Adjust the inputs
Created-value ledger
Result · created value250 unitsIllustrative value created before distribution.

Worked example

Who receives the value?

A lower household cost and higher worker pay require created surplus. Moving a fee between parties is a transfer, not created value.

Adjust the inputs
Distribution ledger
Result · distributed250 unitsLedger balances the illustrative value created.
Created value250

Worked example

What does the service cost to deliver?

Contribution is net employer revenue minus assessor, support, payment and expected rework or refund costs. Reuse leverage is tracked separately.

Adjust the inputs
Result · contribution110 contributionIllustrative contribution after route costs.
Acquisition payback2.0 services
Reuse leverage4.0×
Listed costs140

Carry the proof

Portability: the check belongs to the worker

The CV introduces the person. The Card opens the task record. The worker chooses what to share with the next household. 19

Model 6 Worker portability: rebuild versus reuse Worked example · initial record 150, refresh 20 · illustrative cost units 21

Grouped bar chart comparing rebuild-each-time cost with portable reuse cost at 1, 2, 5 and 10 uses. Rebuild rises to 1,500 at ten uses. Reuse rises to 330. Average reuse cost falls from 150 to 33.

1,500 0 1 use 2 uses 5 uses 10 uses Rebuild each time (CV / office file) Worker-owned Card (reuse)
Data table
Rebuild versus reuse cost by number of uses
Uses Rebuild total Reuse total Reuse average
1150150150
230017085
575023046
101,50033033
Portable record · inspectable objectDEMO-E01
Illustrative example

Amal · Family meal

The task, date and method travel with the record.

Task
Family meal
Date
24 Aug 2026
Source
Task observed
Scope
Defined cooking task
Relevant evidence shared
Task observedFamily meal · defined task · supports this brief
Shared with next householdCurrent access: relevant evidence only
Household viewRelevant task, method and date are visible. Private contact details remain outside this record.

Card and CV do different work

CVReadable introduction: work history, languages, preferences and context.
CardInspectable access: relevant task record, source, date, scope and current sharing state.
Scope change stays visibleA proposed new duty is not silently accepted. It appears to both perspectives for agreement, support and a later outcome record.
Opportunity and learning loop Choose what the next record should change: recognise existing ability, develop a gap, or change the match.
Start a household brief Check your skills. See what they are worth Start a worker profile

Explore further

Scenarios

Explore more household situations and the questions worth asking.

Explore 30 hiring situations
The evidence aperture

A claim becomes inspectable when its source, method, date, scope and access are visible.

Feasible connection

Move from a role label to a defined worker–household pair.

The other side

A worker also needs an intelligible household opportunity.

Before commitment

Earlier evidence protects a more consequential decision.

Three gaps, three actions

Separate missing evidence, unclear terms and unresolved preference.

Inspectable recommendation

A recommendation is useful when its reason can be opened.

The Saudi system

Execution, protection and selection are complementary functions.

A household screening account

Follow the search work instead of flattening it into a score.

Two sides, different questions

Worker and employer signals are not paired rows or population rates.

Experimental support

References, shareable results and work records change behaviour in named studies.

Separate the objects

Evidence, opportunity, fit receipt and outcome are different records.

Evidence vs protection

Preventing a mismatch is not the same as paying for its consequences.

Break-even

Make the cost of uncertainty visible and editable.

Recognition or development

A gap can mean recognition, a changed job or a development choice.

Conversation to brief

Turn household language into a comparable opportunity record.

Capacity constraint

Show what a small team can and cannot inspect at once.

Reuse economics

Create once, refresh precisely and keep the source date attached.

The comparison brief

Agreement needs a brief that governs the comparison.

Keep the person visible

Evidence should clarify a person, not replace their agency.

Open the check

Open the evidence method instead of stopping at a badge.

Next useful check

Choose the next question that can change the action.

Make method intelligible

Self-declared and task observed must never collapse into one label.

Change the question

Change the brief and see the useful match change.

Decision receipt

Record why this evidence answered this brief.

Scope changes

Make a proposed duty visible to both perspectives.

Card and CV

One introduces; the other opens relevant evidence.

Travel through channels

Share where people already make hiring decisions.

Development choice

Turn the next opportunity into a useful development decision.

Outcome as learning

Record an outcome, not a permanent worker score.

The next practical action

End with a real product handoff, not a misleading demo CTA.

Sources

Footnotes

Sources, research scope and calculations are collected on the supporting page. 18 Read the full methodology

  1. Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development recruitment-fee ceilings
  2. Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority (ZATCA)
  3. UpSkillMe coded discussion sample
  4. Research scope and sampling
  5. Example records and check labels
  6. Matching example
  7. Economic models and assumptions
  8. Pay comparisons and quoted voices
  9. Figure calculations and interpretation
  10. The quoted accounts and what they show
  11. Research review of existing services
  12. Wages and the full household budget
  13. Household research: sample and definitions
  14. Figure 1: financial cost calculation
  15. Owner-confirmed headline figures
  16. Market scale: Musaned and outside-system estimate
  17. Facebook group audience and daily activity

Source drawer

Sources

Illustrative example