Skip to content
Masar

Layla Al-Harbi

Staff Accountant · Riyadh

Profession
Associate Accountant
Readiness
68.2Near ready
AI capability
Not yet measured
Match to this role
92%Ranked #1 of candidates for this role
Why this candidate matches

The strongest reasons, in plain language.

  • Top-ranked candidate matched to this role.
  • Meets Ledger — contributes 70% of the match.
  • Strong Professional: 95 out of 100, on 3 pieces of evidence.
  • Strong Digital: 82 out of 100, on 1 piece of evidence.
  • Strong Soft: 74 out of 100, on 2 pieces of evidence.
Requirement match

Every requirement of this role — met or not, by how much, and on what evidence.

  • MetLedgerCompetencyMust have70% of matchNo evidence recorded
  • Not metYears of experienceExperienceNice to haveNo match contributionNo evidence recorded
Score breakdown

5 dimensions, each with the evidence behind it.

  • ProfessionalWeight 20%
    953 pieces of evidence
    AssessmentEvaluationDocument
  • ProfessionalWeight 20%
    882 pieces of evidence
    AssessmentEvaluation
  • DigitalWeight 25%
    821 piece of evidence
    Assessment
  • AIWeight 20%
    Not yet measured

    No evidence yet — this is not a zero.

  • SoftWeight 15%
    742 pieces of evidence
    EvaluationCompletion
Projects & evaluations
Latest project evaluationHuman reviewer
54 / 80
  • Accuracy of the close and its adjustments9 / 10

    Band four: balances agree and every adjustment is supported. Short of band five because the cause of the bank difference is recorded as timing without saying which item.

    To improve:

  • Judgement on machine-produced work6 / 10

    Band three: the error was caught and corrected, and the check itself was not documented, so a reviewer cannot see what was tested.

    To improve:

  • Statements and disclosure8 / 10

    Band four: classification and disclosure are both sound. The effect of the estimates on the result is not stated, which is band five.

    To improve:

  • Evidence a reviewer can follow5 / 10

    Band two to three: the papers exist and are not referenced throughout, so a reviewer cannot get from a figure to its source without asking.

    To improve:

  • Clarity of the memo to a non-financial reader9 / 10

    Band four, close to five: it explains and asks. It does not separate what is confirmed from what is estimated.

    To improve:

  • Looking forward from the closed month4 / 10

    Band two: a forecast whose assumptions are not linked to the figures it produces. No scenario was run.

    To improve:

  • Conduct under the conditions of the task6 / 10

    Band three: it says what was checked and does not identify anything that could not be verified.

    To improve:

  • Construction of the working model7 / 10

    Band three to four: linked and durable, organised enough to review, with no internal check that would reveal a break.

    To improve:

Known gaps

Stated plainly — what this candidate is missing or has not yet shown.

  • Missing (nice to have): Years of experience.Nice to have
  • AI not yet measured — no evidence collected, not a zero.Not yet measured