Skip to content
HireSalt
Research & Benchmarks

What happens when you upload a resume HireSalt cannot read?

The HireSalt team 5 min read

In our test, 5 of 5 resume files HireSalt could not read cost 0 credits once processing finished. That is a small test: 5 files, one run, on 16 October 2026. It shows what happened to these five files, not a rate you can expect across every broken file a candidate might send.

The five were a scanned resume saved as an image-only PDF, a valid PDF with one blank page, an empty 0-byte file named .pdf, a Word file holding only a name, and a plain text file renamed .docx. Three of them were accepted at upload, took 1 credit, failed to read, and had the credit returned by the time processing finished (5 to 31 seconds after upload). The other two were turned away at upload and never charged. Pressing Retry once on the scanned file also took 1 credit and returned it.

Credits taken at upload and net credits after processing for each upload in the odd-inputs test. The 5 unreadable files (scanned PDF, blank PDF, 0-byte file, name-only Word file, text file named .docx) each ended at 0 net credits: three were taken 1 credit at upload and refunded, two were turned away at upload. Retry on the scanned file was charged 1 and refunded. The original, 1-page, 6-page and re-saved copy were each charged 1 credit and scored 47, 51, 51 and 41; two exact duplicates were skipped at 0 credits.Credits per upload, one test run (11 uploads, 1 Retry)FileWhat happenedTaken atuploadNet afterprocessingThe 5 unreadable filesScanned image PDFFailed, credit refunded10Blank one-page PDFFailed, credit refunded10Empty 0-byte fileTurned away at upload00Word file, name onlyFailed, credit refunded10Text file named .docxTurned away at upload00Retry pressed on the scanned fileRetry, scanned PDFFailed, credit refunded10Readable files, for comparisonOriginal PDFScored 47111-page versionScored 51116-page versionScored 5111Same file againSkipped as duplicate00Same file, new nameSkipped as duplicate00Re-saved copyScored 4111
Credits taken at upload and net credits after processing for each upload in one test run on 16 October 2026: 5 unreadable files, 1 Retry and 6 uploads of readable files for comparison.

How we tested

We set up a fresh copy of HireSalt with one software engineer job and a test account holding 100 credits. Each file was sent through the real upload route, the same request the upload page makes, one at a time. We read the credit balance and ledger before each upload, straight after it, and once processing had finished. We wrote the pass rule before the run: every unreadable file must end at 0 net credits, no file may get a score for content the app did not read, and the original resume plus a 1-page and a 6-page version of it must each get a score.

The test passed. The original scored 47, and the 1-page and 6-page versions scored 51 each. The readable files were scored by our production model. The account ended at 96 credits: 4 files were scored, at 1 credit each.

What it does not handle well

This test and its sibling tests found problems we have not fixed yet.

The failure message does not help. For the three files that failed after upload, the page first says “Uploaded 1 resume; scoring started.” The row then shows Failed and asks you to retry. Retry fails the same way, because the file itself cannot be read. The real reason, that the file may be a scanned image and needs a text PDF or Word file, is only in our server log.

Rejected files are not named. For the two files turned away at upload, the upload page says only “No new resumes added.” It does not say which file or why. We worked this message out from a copy of the page’s logic, not from a browser. The same file sent as a plain form, without the page’s script, does get a message that names it and says it is not a valid PDF or Word document.

Duplicate checks only catch identical files. Uploading the same file again, under the same name or a new one, was skipped with no charge, 2 of 2 times. That is too few to rely on. A re-saved copy of the same resume, with the same text but different file bytes, was charged 1 credit, scored 41 against the original’s 47, and listed as a second candidate. One example, but it means one person can appear twice on a shortlist and cost you twice.

Scanned resumes are not read. HireSalt does not run text recognition on images. A scanned resume fails and is refunded; it is not scored.

Only .pdf and .docx are accepted. .doc, .txt, .rtf, .odt and image files are rejected at upload. Older exports need converting first.

Tables in Word files are not read. In a separate test, a skills table inside 8 of 8 Word resumes was dropped when we read the text: 117 of 132 listed skills never reached the scorer. The file is readable, so it is charged, but part of it is missed.

A file that is not a resume gets a 0, not a warning. In another test, an explainer handout uploaded as a resume was accepted and scored 0 in every run, rather than flagged as not a resume.

What this test does not show

Five files, each tried once, do not cover every kind of broken file. The test says nothing about scoring accuracy. The 47, 51 and 51 for one resume at three lengths come from a single resume, and the 4-point gap is about the average spread (4.19 points) we measured when the same resume and job were scored three times.

Related tests: see all results on the benchmark hub, how often a score comes with a reason in does every HireSalt score come with a reason, and what happens when the same resume is scored repeatedly in how consistent is AI resume scoring.

Keep reading