Why what's problematic in the resume?
That can be bad luck, but taken as a whole, many recruiters and/or hiring managers are going to pass over this resume.
2. The language contains too many errors for a senior candidate.
“agentic devlopment”, “MFP … initative”, “the Veteran Affairs” rather than “the Department of Veterans Affairs”, “I begun my career”, “kept me going and interesting in consulting”, “problems that’s been ailing them”, “tight knit” should usually be “tight-knit”, “on-going” should be “ongoing”, “around ~3x weekly” is redundant, “Deployed changes to help reduce noise of the maintaining of…” is difficult to understand, “Extended dynamic application placements from Glitch’s internal mappings…” is nearly unintelligible.
3. Generic positioning
4. The resume lacks prioritization, which as a hiring manager I will interpret as they'll struggle with prioritization in their work too.
I wish them all the best, but reaching for conspiracy (am I on a list?) when you haven't introspected and critically evaluated what you put out there, signals to me they will continue to struggle.
Fork found in kitchen.
It's a buyer's market - he should spend the hour with an LLM iterating on his resume.
Perhaps it is easier to understand once you acknowledge hiring managers don't handle a hand full of applications at a time but hundreds, and half of them are dropped right at the first round. What compels you to spend your time pulling this candidate into an interview round over anyone else? The candidate clearly didn't even bothered with a spell check.
Half of the issues pointed out are more than stylistic (activity instead of impact, generic/no prioritization). Even without stylistic issues it's not a compelling resume.
And basic spelling mistakes are more than a stylistic issue, it shows a real carelessness that it's hard to imagine wouldn't be in their work