# Match signals Every candidate equivalent in the **Candidate Matches** section of the **Course Equivalencies** tab comes with the same four pieces of information: a **percentage score**, three quick **check signals**, and a written **justification**. This page explains what each one means and how to use them together. The two main columns on the equivalencies table — **Transfer Course** (cream-banded) and **Home Course Match** (lavender-banded) — are color-coded so you can scan rows quickly without confusing which side is which. *** ## The percentage score A single number from 0 to 100 representing Mapademics's overall confidence that this candidate is a good equivalent for the transferring course. Shown as a colored badge: * **Green** — strong match. Mapademics is confident. * **Yellow / orange** — partial match. Likely usable but worth reading the justification. * **Below the visible threshold** — Mapademics found something but isn't confident enough to recommend it without scrutiny. The score takes into account course content, level, credits, catalog year, and more. It's not just a literal text-similarity number. *** ## The three check signals Sitting next to the percentage are three named signals. Each is one of three states — green check (positive), amber dash (partial — only on Year Proximity), or red X (negative). ### Credit Match Two states. A green check means the candidate's credit value matches the transferring course's credit value. A red X means it doesn't. A missing Credit Match isn't an automatic disqualifier — credit values vary between institutions and a strong content match with a one-credit difference can still be the right call — but it does mean the receiving department may need to think about partial credit or a custom equivalency. ### Level Match Two states. A green check means the candidate's course level is consistent with the transferring course's level. A red X means it isn't. A missing Level Match usually means content overlap without level overlap (a freshman intro course matched against a junior elective, for example). That's often a legitimate equivalency, but worth flagging. ### Year Proximity Three states, because catalog drift is gradual: * **Green check** — the candidate is from the same catalog year as (or directly adjacent to) the year the transferring course was taken in. * **Amber dash** — the candidate is from a nearby year, but not the closest one available. * **Red X** — there's significant distance between the candidate's catalog year and the year the course was taken. When a course's content has stayed stable over time, Year Proximity will check easily. When a course has been substantially revised — renamed, reorganized, retired and reintroduced — Year Proximity is the signal most likely to flag the discrepancy. *** ## The match justification Below the signals is a one- or two-sentence justification Mapademics writes when each candidate is scored. It explains *why* this specific candidate was suggested for this specific transferring course — typically describing the content overlap, the shared learning outcomes, or the structural relationship between the two courses. The justification is often the deciding factor when two candidates have similar percentage scores. A 94% match with a justification you find unconvincing is worse than an 81% match with a justification that nails it. When you pin a candidate, its justification rides along with the pin and appears on the **Report** tab, where you can edit it before downloading the PDF. See [The articulation report](/working-with-packages/the-report.md). If you want to leave a human-written annotation that lives *alongside* the justification — a caveat, a registrar policy reference, a question for review — use the per-candidate **Flag and Reviewer note** feature. It's independent of the score and signals; see [Flag and Reviewer note](/working-with-packages/course-equivalencies.md#flag-and-reviewer-note). *** ## Reading them together A useful mental model: the percentage tells you *how confident*, and the signals plus justification tell you *why*. The pattern that warrants the most caution is a **high percentage with one or more missing signals** — a strong content match with, say, a missing Level Match might still be the right pin, but it's worth a few seconds of human judgment first. When in doubt: * Read the justification. * Check which signals are missing. * Compare the top candidate to the second and third — if they're close together and the differences come down to small signal gaps, you may want to pick from a lower-ranked candidate that better matches your institution's articulation policy. *** ## Next steps * [Matching course equivalencies](/working-with-packages/course-equivalencies.md) * [Glossary](/reference/glossary.md) * [Arlo, your in-app helper](/reference/arlo.md) --- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://transfers-docs.mapademics.com/reference/match-signals.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.