To get what the op is looking for, you put the 10 year req, then structure comp ballooning towards the end of the vest and it will get you exactly those people op wants.
You don’t say, “must be settling with a family”. You offer something that is only enticing if you’re going to stay 5 years.
If what you're saying is "that's what I'm looking for but I wouldn't say it..."
I dunno, that seems like exactly the sort of thing people would complain about.
This seems odd to say the least.
As I stated, for longer termed positions that require some stability matching the duration of a capital build project we look for people that have had exposure to a variety of past experiences and some demonstrated ability to stick something out coupled with some indication they making long term plans.
Which bit of that goes agin your HR policy?
Perhaps you might like to re-read what was written, slowly and very carefully.
Some people struggle with parsing meaning from English and jump to rash interpretation.
FWIW your approach is the most sound one I read on this thread and how most successful companies probably do it. I do feel it is slightly discriminatory though against those with un ordinary paths
Some positions require a degree of intelligence, there are many things that can demonstrate levels and types of intelligence.
Some positions demand a certain amount of physical endurance, there are many things that can indicate physical ability.
Some positions demand a level of stability and commitment to time scale, there are many different factors that can indicate that.
Some comments require a certain ability to read qualifiers and nuance in the English language, there are many that breeze right past such things and imagine things unwritten.
None are in any way indicators of professional capabilities.
All this seems to do is make it harder for candidates to know if they're truly qualified, causing them to apply to more things, many of which they're not qualified for, wasting everyone's time.