Building an evidence-led pharmaceutical CV

Positioning must come from evidence

A headline should summarise the role family and scope the CV supports. A desired next role can inform emphasis, but it must not be presented as a position already held. If a transition is proposed, label it clearly as a target.

Therapeutic areas, geographies and functions should appear only when supported by the source CV or confirmed by the candidate. More terms do not automatically create a stronger proposition.

Show scope before detail

For senior roles, establish accountability early: market or regional remit, portfolio, budget, team, launch stage and decision ownership. For technical roles, establish study, submission, system or evidence responsibilities.

Employer, title and dates must remain unambiguous. Attractive formatting is not useful if extraction software cannot determine which company belongs to which role.

Use outcomes honestly

Quantified results are valuable when the source supports them. Do not manufacture numbers to make a responsibility sound stronger. A verified non-quantified outcome—such as reimbursement achieved, inspection readiness delivered or a team established—can still be meaningful.

A good bullet connects action, context and result. Routine duties should not displace stronger evidence on page one simply because they are recent.

Tailor by selection, not invention

Tailoring should change emphasis and vocabulary while preserving facts. Select achievements relevant to the role, clarify transferable evidence and surface gaps for review. Never copy a vacancy requirement into the CV unless the candidate's history supports it.

Before exporting, compare every material role, employer, date and achievement with the source. An improved document is not ready if it silently drops or merges important employment history.

Run a claim-to-source audit

For every material CV claim, identify the role, date, project and source from which it came. Check title, employer, geography, product stage, therapy area, numerical result and personal attribution. If the source cannot support the claim, correct it or mark it for confirmation before export.

Then compare the CV with the target vacancy. Missing evidence should remain a gap; it should not be solved by importing the employer’s wording. A source audit is particularly important after automated rewriting because fluent language can make an unsupported inference look factual.

A bullet quality test

A useful bullet normally answers four questions: what problem or responsibility existed, what you personally did, the scale or regulated context, and what changed. Not every bullet needs a metric, but every important claim needs a clear subject and credible outcome.

Remove adjectives that the evidence does not demonstrate. Replace strategic, transformational or successful with the actual decision or result. Ask whether a reader could distinguish your action from the team’s result and whether you could explain the same wording under interview challenge.

Sources and further reading

Authoritative sources support the regulated or employment context. The practical framework and interpretation are original PTTF editorial work.

1. Employment practices and data protection: recruitment and selection — Information Commissioner's Office
2. Finding a job — GOV.UK