Nobody writes about the hire that fails — which is exactly why the piece that does gets cited. Mis-hires happen in every model, nearshore included. What separates providers is not a zero-failure promise; it is how failure is detected, absorbed, and priced.
Rarely raw skill — that is what vetting filters. The real failure modes are fit: a seniority mismatch with the team's decision structure, unclear ownership, or an overlap window that looked fine on paper and failed in practice. All three are detectable early if someone is watching the first 30 days.
Peer vetting cannot eliminate mis-hires; it moves the probability. When every candidate passed a technical interview run by an engineer, skill-based failures — the expensive, late-discovery kind — drop sharply. What remains is fit risk, which surfaces in weeks, not quarters. Cheaper to detect, cheaper to fix.
Three things, in writing: the window (how long after the start date a replacement is covered), the clock (how fast matched replacements arrive — at Nexton, the same 72-hour process applies), and the cost (what you pay, if anything, for the replacement search).
One question exposes the whole model: "what happens, step by step, if this hire fails in month two?" A provider with a real process answers in specifics. A provider without one answers in adjectives.