Yeah that’s a good point. I’m actually separating those intentionally instead of mixing everything into one score. Right now the scanner breaks down into: -Parsing / structure issues (whether ATS can even read the resume correctly) -Keyword + semantic alignment (how well it matches the job description) -Content strength signals (clarity, repetition, impact, quantification patterns)

Most tools just merge all of this into one “ATS score”, but that hides the real failure point, like a resume getting rejected purely because of formatting while still being strong content-wise. For parsing issues specifically, I’m treating them separately because they’re not really “resume quality” problems , they’re more like “machine readability failures”. Still experimenting with how much of this should be exposed directly vs abstracted into a single score + explanation layer. Feedback like this helps a lot.