You can’t manage what you can’t see.

Field test 1 of 3 · 11 September 2026

Field Test: One employer, three state disclosure contexts

Public source observed

One employer-operated job board

Current board openings

176

States reviewed

Colorado, California, New York

Posting records reviewed in detail

Three

Current state requirement sources cited

Three official sources

What we observed

One public employer board listed roles reaching Colorado, California, and New York. The California posting displayed a numeric base-pay range. The New York posting displayed a numeric salary range. A multi-location talent-community posting that named Denver, Colorado displayed benefits and the phrase “competitive salary with equity,” but no numeric range. Application-deadline language was not found in the three posting records reviewed.

What became visible

• The same employer's public template presented compensation differently across state-linked postings.
• The Colorado-inclusive posting named Denver alongside other locations, so applicability cannot be inferred from the location string alone.
• Each reviewed item is tied to its exact public posting text, source, and observation date.

Discrepancies and compliance review

• Confirm whether the multi-location talent-community posting represented an opportunity that could be performed in Colorado.
• If Colorado rules apply, review whether “competitive salary with equity” supplies the compensation information required by the organization's applicable rules.
• Review whether the benefits language supplies the general description required for the posting type.
• Confirm whether an application deadline was required and, if so, whether it appeared anywhere in the applicant-visible posting surface.
• Verify the California and New York ranges against the approved internal compensation record and the current statutory definitions.

Why it matters

One publishing template can expose an organization to different disclosure requirements at the same time. GhostPost.us preserves the exact public language and connects it to official requirement records so legal and compliance teams can review the difference before an inquiry, complaint, or enforcement action.

Field test 2 of 3 · 26–29 August 2026

Field Test: Two public sources, one organization

Observation window

Four days

Public sources observed

Two, both associated with the same organization

Roles visible on the first source

28

Roles visible on the second source

1

Observations recorded

1,185

What we observed

Two public sources associated with the same organization were read repeatedly over four days. One source displayed 28 publicly visible roles. The other displayed one.

What became visible

• The two public sources presented materially different views of the same organization's public job presence.
• Every role on each source carries the date and time it was observed and the source it was read from.
• Reading one source alone would have produced a defensible but incomplete picture of what the public could see.

Discrepancies and compliance review

• Reconcile why one public source displayed 28 roles while the other displayed one.
• Confirm whether required posting information remained consistent across every source where a role appeared.
• Determine which source represented the organization's intended public hiring record on that date.

Why it matters

An organization looking at one public source is not looking at its public footprint. The difference between two sources is only visible when both are observed and recorded side by side.

Field test 3 of 3 · 26–29 August 2026

Field Test: What four days of repeated observation showed

Observation window

Four days

Roles tracked individually

29

Role appearances recorded

29

Roles that stopped appearing

5

Roles that reappeared after being absent

2

What we observed

Repeated reads of the same public sources produced a continuously updated record of which roles were publicly visible, and when. Every change below is an individual event in the record, with the role followed by its own identifier rather than counted in a total.

What changed, and when

1. 26 August, 03:12A customer-experience role that had been publicly visible since the first read stopped appearing on the source.
2. 26 August, 03:23The same customer-experience role appeared again 11 minutes later, after 6 recorded observations.
3. 26 August, 03:23A separate public-sector sales role was observed exactly once, then stopped appearing and did not return during the window.
4. 26 August, 04:21The customer-experience role stopped appearing a second time and remained absent for the rest of the window.
5. 27 August, 13:19A second customer-experience role, publicly visible since 26 August across 35 observations, stopped appearing.
6. 28 August, 01:21That role appeared again after roughly 12 hours of absence.
7. 28 August, 01:21A finance internship role, the only in-office role tracked, stopped appearing after 37 observations and did not return.

What became visible

• Individual roles could be followed over time rather than counted once — the same role disappearing twice is two recorded events, not one.
• A role can leave and return within minutes; without repeated observation that round trip is invisible entirely.
• One role was publicly visible for a single observation before it stopped appearing.
• A read that failed was recorded as a failed read, separately from a role that was genuinely no longer displayed.

Discrepancies and compliance review

• Reconcile each disappearance and return with the approved opening status and internal system of record.
• Review whether a role's required public information remained consistent before and after it returned.
• Preserve the dated evidence needed to explain what applicants could see at each point in time.

Why it matters

A single snapshot can tell you what was visible. Repeated observation can show you what changed — and it can surface that change while there is still an opportunity to review it.