feat(05): state in-progress qualifications explicitly; check tenure against output (#210)

Two profile-accuracy rules for the CV guide.

**In-progress qualifications.** A bare year range is not enough: an entry
reading 2025-2026, seen partway through 2026, reads as a finished degree,
because a skimming reader treats a closed range as closed. A profile
statement saying "currently completing" does not fix it - the education
entry is where a reader checks the credential, so it has to stand alone.
Claiming a credential not yet held is discovered at transcript or
reference check rather than at interview, and it costs nothing to
prevent. Adds the LaTeX form and a check that the profile statement,
education entry and any availability note agree on one completion date.

**Tenure against visible output.** A two-year role represented by a
single project reads as low output whether or not that is fair; the
reader cannot know what filled the time, so they guess. Hits career
changers, long-cycle work (industrial, clinical, research) and anyone
kept on a single account. Three honest fixes in preference order -
surface more real work, make the phases within the role explicit, name
what made the cycle long - and an explicit prohibition on the two
dishonest ones: never pad with invented projects, never quietly shorten
employment dates. Both are discoverable and worse than the perception
problem. If the ratio survives the fixes the interview question is
coming, so the answer belongs in interview prep rather than improvised.

framework_version 1.2.0 -> 1.3.0.

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/job-application-assistant/05-cv-templates.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-framework_version: 1.2.1
+framework_version: 1.3.0
 ---
 
 # CV Templates and Tailoring Guide
@@ -136,11 +136,45 @@ Use the posting's own core term in the matching bullet's bold label when it trut
 - For senior roles, keep education brief (dates and titles only)
 - Include thesis topics when relevant to the target role
 
+#### In-progress qualifications must say so explicitly
+
+**A bare year range is not enough.** An entry reading `2025–2026`, seen partway through 2026, looks like a *finished* degree, because a reader skimming a CV treats a closed range as closed. A profile statement that says "currently completing…" does not fix it: the education entry is where a reader checks the credential, so it has to stand on its own.
+
+State completion inside the entry itself:
+
+```latex
+\item{\cventry{2025--2026}{[Degree], [Field]}{[Institution]}{[Location]}{}{\vspace{1pt}
+In progress, expected [Month Year]. [Relevant topics]
+}}
+```
+
+Any consistent form works: `In progress, expected <Month Year>.` / `Expected completion <Month Year>.` / a date field of `2025–present`.
+
+Claiming a credential not yet held is a factual misstatement, and it is the kind discovered at transcript or reference check rather than at interview. It costs nothing to prevent. The same applies to in-progress certifications and courses.
+
+**Check for agreement:** for a current student, the profile statement, the education entry, and any availability or work-permit note must all give the same completion date. Contradiction between them is worse than any single version.
+
 ### Professional Experience
 - Rewrite bullet points to emphasize aspects most relevant to the target role
 - Use 4-6 bullets for most recent role, 3-4 for previous, 2-3 for older
 - **Emphasize measurable results** where possible: "Reduced processing time by X%", "Model adopted by the team"
 
+#### Check tenure against visible output
+
+Before finalizing, look at each role the way a stranger will: **date span versus how much work is shown.** A two-year role represented by a single project reads as low output, whether or not that is fair. The reader cannot know what filled the time, so they guess, and the guess is unflattering.
+
+This bites hardest on **career changers** (part of the tenure went into learning the new field), on **long-cycle work** (industrial deployment, clinical or regulatory projects, research — one delivery genuinely takes quarters), and on anyone whose employer kept them on a single account or product.
+
+Three honest fixes, in order of preference:
+
+1. **Surface more real work.** Ask what else the period contained. There are often real secondary projects, internal tooling, or support work that never reached the CV because it felt minor. Best fix when the material exists.
+2. **Make the phases within the role explicit.** If the span genuinely had stages, say so — an initial period learning the domain or supporting the team, then ownership of the named work through to delivery. A phased arc reads as a growth curve; an undifferentiated multi-year block reads as stagnation.
+3. **Name what made the cycle long.** Data collection from a live environment, validation with domain experts, deployment and iteration against real output. Reviewers who know the domain accept this immediately.
+
+**Never** pad with invented projects, and **never** quietly shorten the employment dates so the ratio looks better. Both are discoverable, and both are worse than the perception problem being solved.
+
+**Prepare the interview answer too.** If a long span against little visible output survives these fixes, the question is coming. The candidate needs a ready two-part answer — what actually filled the time, and what the outcome was — recorded in their interview prep rather than improvised in the room.
+
 ### Handling Employment Gaps (Best Practice)
 If there is a gap in your employment history:
 - The gap should be explained matter-of-factly if needed