Job Description
,
for section headers, - for list items. No CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
. Must preserve all original content word-for-word, no addition, removal, summarizing, rephrasing. So we need to parse the given raw text (which includes HTML tags and styling). We need to extract the textual content and then format it as per rules.
We must not add or remove content. So we need to keep exactly the same words, punctuation, etc. However we can change formatting to HTML tags. We must not add extra text like "Job Title:" etc. We must preserve original content.
Given the raw input includes many HTML tags with styles etc. We need to strip those and produce plain text content, then wrap in appropriate tags.
We need to identify sections: There's a title: "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
" That's likely a heading or introductory text. Then a paragraph: "Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this." Then several empty paragraphs. Then "Job Description
" then empty paragraphs then the sentence: "Provides advice on a specific range of products to a specific allocated market and are individually accountable for achieving results through their own efforts." Then empty paragraphs then Responsibilities
then then series of sections each with a paragraph.
Then after responsibilities, there is a paragraph with " " (non-breaking space) then "na" then empty paragraphs then "
Skills
" then empty paragraphs then a line of skills separated by commas: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships"
Then empty paragraphs then "Competencies
" then empty paragraphs then list of competencies each followed by etc. The raw shows:
Action OrientedBalances StakeholdersBuilds NetworksCollaboratesCommunicates EffectivelyCustomer FocusDrives ResultsEnsures Accountability...
So each competency appears as a word/phrase then empty h3 tags.
Then "Education
" then empty paragraphs then "NQF Level 5 - Higher, Advance or Occupational Certificate or equivalent: Finance And Banking"
Then empty paragraphs then "Closing Date
" then empty paragraphs then "04 October 2026 , 23:59"
Then empty paragraphs then "The appointment will be made from the designated group in line with the Employment Equity Plan of Old Mutual South Africa and the specific business unit in question.
" then empty paragraphs then "The Old Mutual Story!
"
We need to preserve all content word-for-word. That includes the non-breaking space and "na" line? There's a "na" after some spaces. We must keep it.
We need to output HTML with for introductory paragraphs and general text,
for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to convert the section headers we have: "Job Description", "Responsibilities", "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also maybe the initial title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" and the Old Mutual paragraph could be considered introductory paragraphs.
We must not add any extra text; we must keep the original content exactly. So we need to wrap each piece of text in appropriate tags.
We must not add any new text like "Job Title:" etc. So we just output the content as is, but with tags.
We need to decide what constitutes a section header. The rules: Use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we should treat "Job Description", "Responsibilities", "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" as section headers and wrap them in . Also maybe the initial bolded title? It's not listed as a typical section header, but we could treat it as a paragraph (
) because it's introductory text. The rule: "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text". So we can put the title and the Old Mutual sentence in
tags.
We also need to handle lists: The responsibilities are each under
headings with a paragraph. According to rules, we should use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So the responsibilities could be considered a list of duties. So we should wrap each responsibility item in
- inside a
. However we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the heading titles like "Customer Service", "Solutions Analysis", etc. Those headings are currently tags. We need to convert them to something? The rule says use for section headers. But these are sub-sections under Responsibilities. Could treat each responsibility as a list item with the heading as part of the item? The original content includes headings and paragraphs. We must preserve all original content word-for-word. So we cannot drop the headings. We need to keep the headings exactly as they appear, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags. The rule says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, etc.). It doesn't forbid using other heading levels for sub-sections? It says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). It doesn't say we cannot use other heading levels for other headings, but we should follow the instruction: Use for section headers. It might be implied that we should use for those specific section headers, but other headings could be
? However the instruction: "Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role)". It doesn't forbid using or for other headings, but to be safe, we could convert all headings to if they are section headers. But the responsibility subheadings like "Customer Service" could be considered a subsection; maybe we should treat them as
or ? But we cannot add extra text; we can only wrap existing text in tags. So we could wrap "Customer Service" in as well, but that would be using for a subsection, which is okay? The rule didn't forbid using for other headings, just said use for section headers (e.g., ...). It didn't say only those. So we can use for any heading we encounter.
But we also need to use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So for responsibilities, we could make a
where each - contains the heading and its paragraph. However that would add structure not present originally (we would be grouping heading and paragraph inside li). That might be considered adding structure but not adding or removing text. It's permissible as long as we preserve the text. The rule: "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Adding tags is allowed; we are not adding text. So we can wrap the heading and paragraph inside
- . That seems okay.
Similarly for skills: The skills are a comma-separated list. We could turn each skill into
- inside a
. The original text is a sentence: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". We need to preserve that exactly. If we split into list items, we would be removing the commas and changing the format. That would be altering the content (removing commas, adding line breaks). That's not allowed. So we must keep the skills as a single paragraph or maybe as a containing that exact string. The rule says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we change the format, we are not preserving the original content word-for-word. So we must keep it as a paragraph. However the instruction might expect us to treat the skills as a list, but we must preserve the content exactly. The content includes commas separating skills. If we wrap each skill in
- , we would lose the commas unless we keep them inside the li. Eg:
- Building Trust,
etc. That would still have commas but also extra tags. The original string had commas separating items, but also no trailing comma after last item. If we split, we would need to decide where to put commas. Could keep them inside li: e.g., - Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
... - Strengthening Customer Relationships
. That would preserve the commas as part of the li content (except the last). That would still be the same characters? The original string: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". If we produce:
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer-Focused,
- Customer Service,
- Customer Understanding,
- Direct Selling,
- Identifying Sales Opportunities,
- Oral Communications,
- Probing Questions,
- Qualifying Prospects,
- Sales Data Management,
- Sales Software,
- Strategic Selling,
- Strengthening Customer Relationships
If we concatenate the li contents with commas and spaces? Actually the original had a space after each comma. In our li version, we would have the comma inside the li, then the li closes, then maybe whitespace/newline, then next li starts with the next skill (no leading space). That would change the spacing: original had a space after each comma before the next skill. In our version, after the closing
we might have a newline or space, then the next - starts with the skill directly (no leading space). That would alter the exact string if we consider the whole document as a string. But the rule likely refers to preserving the textual content, not the exact whitespace formatting. Usually they mean preserve the words, not necessarily exact spacing. However to be safe, we could keep the skills as a
paragraph, not a list. The rule says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we don't, we might be violating the rule. However the rule also says "If text has no clear sections, just wrap paragraphs in
tags". The skills section is a clear list of skills separated by commas. It could be considered a list. The instruction to use
- for list items is a directive. So we should follow it.
Thus we need to convert the skills string into list items, preserving the words and commas as part of each item? The original had commas separating items; we could keep the commas inside the li except for the last item which had no trailing comma. That would preserve the exact sequence of characters if we also include the spaces after commas? Let's think: Original: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships"
If we produce:
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer-Focused,
- Customer Service,
- Customer Understanding,
- Direct Selling,
- Identifying Sales Opportunities,
- Oral Communications,
- Probing Questions,
- Qualifying Prospects,
- Sales Data Management,
- Sales Software,
- Strategic Selling,
- Strengthening Customer Relationships
Now if we strip tags and get the text content, we would get:
Building Trust,
Consultative Selling,
Customer-Focused,
Customer Service,
Customer Understanding,
Direct Selling,
Identifying Sales Opportunities,
Oral Communications,
Probing Questions,
Qualifying Prospects,
Sales Data Management,
Sales Software,
Strategic Selling,
Strengthening Customer Relationships
That's each item on a new line with a comma at end except last. The original had items separated by comma and space on same line. So the text content differs (newlines vs spaces). However the rule about preserving content likely refers to the visible content, not formatting. Usually they'd accept converting a comma-separated list to - . I think it's okay.
Similarly for competencies: The original had each competency followed by empty . We could treat each competency as a list item. The original text: "Action OrientedBalances StakeholdersBuilds NetworksCollaboratesCommunicates EffectivelyCustomer FocusDrives ResultsEnsures Accountability". If we extract the words, we get list: Action Oriented, Balances Stakeholders, Builds Networks, Collaborates, Communicates Effectively, Customer Focus, Drives Results, Ensures Accountability. We can make
- for each.
For responsibilities: We have headings and paragraphs. We could make each responsibility as a
- containing the heading and its paragraph. That would preserve the text.
For the initial title and Old Mutual sentence: we can wrap in
.
For the Job Description heading: we can wrap in
.
For the closing date line: we can wrap in
or maybe
? It's a section header "Closing Date". According to rule, we should use for section headers like Education, etc. So we wrap "Closing Date" in . Then the date itself is a paragraph
.
Similarly for Education heading:
Education
then the education detail in .
For the final italic bold paragraph about appointment: we can wrap in
(preserving the ... internal tags? Actually we need to preserve the content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes
The appointment will be made from the designated group in line with the Employment Equity Plan of Old Mutual South Africa and the specific business unit in question.
. That's HTML tags inside. We need to preserve the content word-for-word, meaning we should keep those tags as part of the text? The instruction: "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". The original content includes those tags. So we should keep them exactly as they appear, not strip them. However we are supposed to output clean semantic HTML, using only ,
, - . We cannot keep or tags because they are not allowed per rules (no CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
tags). It didn't forbid or , but the rules only specify which tags to use: for paragraphs,
for section headers, - for list items. It didn't say we cannot use other tags like or . However the instruction: "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers ... Use - for list items ... No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". It doesn't explicitly forbid or . But to be safe, we could preserve them as they are, because they are part of original content. However the earlier instruction: "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." It didn't say we cannot use other tags. But the earlier part: "You receive a plain-text job description. Your ONLY job is to format it as clean semantic HTML." The rules
Apply Now ↗
How well do you match?
Get an instant AI match score for this role — free, takes 3 minutes.
Tailor your CV for this role
The concierge rewrites your whole CV and writes a matching cover letter for this job — opens right here, nothing to paste.
Tailor My CV to This Job ✍️
Free cover letter for this job
Upload your CV and get a tailored cover letter in seconds — free, no account needed.
Generate a Cover Letter 📝
. Must preserve all original content word-for-word, no addition, removal, summarizing, rephrasing. So we need to parse the given raw text (which includes HTML tags and styling). We need to extract the textual content and then format it as per rules. We must not add or remove content. So we need to keep exactly the same words, punctuation, etc. However we can change formatting to HTML tags. We must not add extra text like "Job Title:" etc. We must preserve original content. Given the raw input includes many HTML tags with styles etc. We need to strip those and produce plain text content, then wrap in appropriate tags. We need to identify sections: There's a title: "
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
" That's likely a heading or introductory text. Then a paragraph: "Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this." Then several empty paragraphs. Then "Job Description
" then empty paragraphs then the sentence: "Provides advice on a specific range of products to a specific allocated market and are individually accountable for achieving results through their own efforts." Then empty paragraphs thenResponsibilities
then then series ofsections each with a paragraph. Then after responsibilities, there is a paragraph with " " (non-breaking space) then "na" then empty paragraphs then "
Skills
" then empty paragraphs then a line of skills separated by commas: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships" Then empty paragraphs then "Competencies
" then empty paragraphs then list of competencies each followed by etc. The raw shows: Action OrientedBalances StakeholdersBuilds NetworksCollaboratesCommunicates EffectivelyCustomer FocusDrives ResultsEnsures Accountability... So each competency appears as a word/phrase then empty h3 tags. Then "Education
" then empty paragraphs then "NQF Level 5 - Higher, Advance or Occupational Certificate or equivalent: Finance And Banking" Then empty paragraphs then "Closing Date
" then empty paragraphs then "04 October 2026 , 23:59" Then empty paragraphs then "The appointment will be made from the designated group in line with the Employment Equity Plan of Old Mutual South Africa and the specific business unit in question.
" then empty paragraphs then "The Old Mutual Story!
" We need to preserve all content word-for-word. That includes the non-breaking space and "na" line? There's a "na" after some spaces. We must keep it. We need to output HTML withfor introductory paragraphs and general text,
for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to convert the section headers we have: "Job Description", "Responsibilities", "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also maybe the initial title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" and the Old Mutual paragraph could be considered introductory paragraphs.
We must not add any extra text; we must keep the original content exactly. So we need to wrap each piece of text in appropriate tags.
We must not add any new text like "Job Title:" etc. So we just output the content as is, but with tags.
We need to decide what constitutes a section header. The rules: Use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we should treat "Job Description", "Responsibilities", "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" as section headers and wrap them in . Also maybe the initial bolded title? It's not listed as a typical section header, but we could treat it as a paragraph (
. Also maybe the initial bolded title? It's not listed as a typical section header, but we could treat it as a paragraph (
) because it's introductory text. The rule: "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text". So we can put the title and the Old Mutual sentence in
tags. We also need to handle lists: The responsibilities are each under
headings with a paragraph. According to rules, we should use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So the responsibilities could be considered a list of duties. So we should wrap each responsibility item in
- inside a
. However we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the heading titles like "Customer Service", "Solutions Analysis", etc. Those headings are currently tags. We need to convert them to something? The rule says use for section headers. But these are sub-sections under Responsibilities. Could treat each responsibility as a list item with the heading as part of the item? The original content includes headings and paragraphs. We must preserve all original content word-for-word. So we cannot drop the headings. We need to keep the headings exactly as they appear, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags. The rule says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, etc.). It doesn't forbid using other heading levels for sub-sections? It says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). It doesn't say we cannot use other heading levels for other headings, but we should follow the instruction: Use for section headers. It might be implied that we should use for those specific section headers, but other headings could be
? However the instruction: "Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role)". It doesn't forbid using or for other headings, but to be safe, we could convert all headings to if they are section headers. But the responsibility subheadings like "Customer Service" could be considered a subsection; maybe we should treat them as
or ? But we cannot add extra text; we can only wrap existing text in tags. So we could wrap "Customer Service" in as well, but that would be using for a subsection, which is okay? The rule didn't forbid using for other headings, just said use for section headers (e.g., ...). It didn't say only those. So we can use for any heading we encounter.
But we also need to use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So for responsibilities, we could make a
where each - contains the heading and its paragraph. However that would add structure not present originally (we would be grouping heading and paragraph inside li). That might be considered adding structure but not adding or removing text. It's permissible as long as we preserve the text. The rule: "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Adding tags is allowed; we are not adding text. So we can wrap the heading and paragraph inside
- . That seems okay.
Similarly for skills: The skills are a comma-separated list. We could turn each skill into
- inside a
. The original text is a sentence: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". We need to preserve that exactly. If we split into list items, we would be removing the commas and changing the format. That would be altering the content (removing commas, adding line breaks). That's not allowed. So we must keep the skills as a single paragraph or maybe as a containing that exact string. The rule says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we change the format, we are not preserving the original content word-for-word. So we must keep it as a paragraph. However the instruction might expect us to treat the skills as a list, but we must preserve the content exactly. The content includes commas separating skills. If we wrap each skill in
- , we would lose the commas unless we keep them inside the li. Eg:
- Building Trust,
etc. That would still have commas but also extra tags. The original string had commas separating items, but also no trailing comma after last item. If we split, we would need to decide where to put commas. Could keep them inside li: e.g., - Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
... - Strengthening Customer Relationships
. That would preserve the commas as part of the li content (except the last). That would still be the same characters? The original string: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". If we produce:
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer-Focused,
- Customer Service,
- Customer Understanding,
- Direct Selling,
- Identifying Sales Opportunities,
- Oral Communications,
- Probing Questions,
- Qualifying Prospects,
- Sales Data Management,
- Sales Software,
- Strategic Selling,
- Strengthening Customer Relationships
If we concatenate the li contents with commas and spaces? Actually the original had a space after each comma. In our li version, we would have the comma inside the li, then the li closes, then maybe whitespace/newline, then next li starts with the next skill (no leading space). That would change the spacing: original had a space after each comma before the next skill. In our version, after the closing
we might have a newline or space, then the next - starts with the skill directly (no leading space). That would alter the exact string if we consider the whole document as a string. But the rule likely refers to preserving the textual content, not the exact whitespace formatting. Usually they mean preserve the words, not necessarily exact spacing. However to be safe, we could keep the skills as a
paragraph, not a list. The rule says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we don't, we might be violating the rule. However the rule also says "If text has no clear sections, just wrap paragraphs in
tags". The skills section is a clear list of skills separated by commas. It could be considered a list. The instruction to use
- for list items is a directive. So we should follow it.
Thus we need to convert the skills string into list items, preserving the words and commas as part of each item? The original had commas separating items; we could keep the commas inside the li except for the last item which had no trailing comma. That would preserve the exact sequence of characters if we also include the spaces after commas? Let's think: Original: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships"
If we produce:
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer-Focused,
- Customer Service,
- Customer Understanding,
- Direct Selling,
- Identifying Sales Opportunities,
- Oral Communications,
- Probing Questions,
- Qualifying Prospects,
- Sales Data Management,
- Sales Software,
- Strategic Selling,
- Strengthening Customer Relationships
Now if we strip tags and get the text content, we would get:
Building Trust,
Consultative Selling,
Customer-Focused,
Customer Service,
Customer Understanding,
Direct Selling,
Identifying Sales Opportunities,
Oral Communications,
Probing Questions,
Qualifying Prospects,
Sales Data Management,
Sales Software,
Strategic Selling,
Strengthening Customer Relationships
That's each item on a new line with a comma at end except last. The original had items separated by comma and space on same line. So the text content differs (newlines vs spaces). However the rule about preserving content likely refers to the visible content, not formatting. Usually they'd accept converting a comma-separated list to - . I think it's okay.
Similarly for competencies: The original had each competency followed by empty . We could treat each competency as a list item. The original text: "Action OrientedBalances StakeholdersBuilds NetworksCollaboratesCommunicates EffectivelyCustomer FocusDrives ResultsEnsures Accountability". If we extract the words, we get list: Action Oriented, Balances Stakeholders, Builds Networks, Collaborates, Communicates Effectively, Customer Focus, Drives Results, Ensures Accountability. We can make
- for each.
For responsibilities: We have headings and paragraphs. We could make each responsibility as a
- containing the heading and its paragraph. That would preserve the text.
For the initial title and Old Mutual sentence: we can wrap in
.
For the Job Description heading: we can wrap in
.
For the closing date line: we can wrap in
or maybe
? It's a section header "Closing Date". According to rule, we should use for section headers like Education, etc. So we wrap "Closing Date" in . Then the date itself is a paragraph
.
Similarly for Education heading:
Education
then the education detail in .
For the final italic bold paragraph about appointment: we can wrap in
(preserving the ... internal tags? Actually we need to preserve the content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes
The appointment will be made from the designated group in line with the Employment Equity Plan of Old Mutual South Africa and the specific business unit in question.
. That's HTML tags inside. We need to preserve the content word-for-word, meaning we should keep those tags as part of the text? The instruction: "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". The original content includes those tags. So we should keep them exactly as they appear, not strip them. However we are supposed to output clean semantic HTML, using only ,
, - . We cannot keep or tags because they are not allowed per rules (no CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
tags). It didn't forbid or , but the rules only specify which tags to use: for paragraphs,
for section headers, - for list items. It didn't say we cannot use other tags like or . However the instruction: "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers ... Use - for list items ... No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". It doesn't explicitly forbid or . But to be safe, we could preserve them as they are, because they are part of original content. However the earlier instruction: "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." It didn't say we cannot use other tags. But the earlier part: "You receive a plain-text job description. Your ONLY job is to format it as clean semantic HTML." The rules
- . However we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the heading titles like "Customer Service", "Solutions Analysis", etc. Those headings are currently
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So for responsibilities, we could make a
- where each
- contains the heading and its paragraph. However that would add structure not present originally (we would be grouping heading and paragraph inside li). That might be considered adding structure but not adding or removing text. It's permissible as long as we preserve the text. The rule: "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Adding tags is allowed; we are not adding text. So we can wrap the heading and paragraph inside
- . That seems okay. Similarly for skills: The skills are a comma-separated list. We could turn each skill into
- inside a
- . The original text is a sentence: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". We need to preserve that exactly. If we split into list items, we would be removing the commas and changing the format. That would be altering the content (removing commas, adding line breaks). That's not allowed. So we must keep the skills as a single paragraph or maybe as a
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we change the format, we are not preserving the original content word-for-word. So we must keep it as a paragraph. However the instruction might expect us to treat the skills as a list, but we must preserve the content exactly. The content includes commas separating skills. If we wrap each skill in
- , we would lose the commas unless we keep them inside the li. Eg:
- Building Trust, etc. That would still have commas but also extra tags. The original string had commas separating items, but also no trailing comma after last item. If we split, we would need to decide where to put commas. Could keep them inside li: e.g.,
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling, ...
- Strengthening Customer Relationships . That would preserve the commas as part of the li content (except the last). That would still be the same characters? The original string: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". If we produce:
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer-Focused,
- Customer Service,
- Customer Understanding,
- Direct Selling,
- Identifying Sales Opportunities,
- Oral Communications,
- Probing Questions,
- Qualifying Prospects,
- Sales Data Management,
- Sales Software,
- Strategic Selling,
- Strengthening Customer Relationships If we concatenate the li contents with commas and spaces? Actually the original had a space after each comma. In our li version, we would have the comma inside the li, then the li closes, then maybe whitespace/newline, then next li starts with the next skill (no leading space). That would change the spacing: original had a space after each comma before the next skill. In our version, after the closing
containing that exact string. The rule says use
we might have a newline or space, then the next - starts with the skill directly (no leading space). That would alter the exact string if we consider the whole document as a string. But the rule likely refers to preserving the textual content, not the exact whitespace formatting. Usually they mean preserve the words, not necessarily exact spacing. However to be safe, we could keep the skills as a
paragraph, not a list. The rule says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we don't, we might be violating the rule. However the rule also says "If text has no clear sections, just wrap paragraphs in
tags". The skills section is a clear list of skills separated by commas. It could be considered a list. The instruction to use
- for list items is a directive. So we should follow it.
Thus we need to convert the skills string into list items, preserving the words and commas as part of each item? The original had commas separating items; we could keep the commas inside the li except for the last item which had no trailing comma. That would preserve the exact sequence of characters if we also include the spaces after commas? Let's think: Original: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships"
If we produce:
- Building Trust,
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer-Focused,
- Customer Service,
- Customer Understanding,
- Direct Selling,
- Identifying Sales Opportunities,
- Oral Communications,
- Probing Questions,
- Qualifying Prospects,
- Sales Data Management,
- Sales Software,
- Strategic Selling,
- Strengthening Customer Relationships
- . I think it's okay.
Similarly for competencies: The original had each competency followed by empty . We could treat each competency as a list item. The original text: "Action OrientedBalances StakeholdersBuilds NetworksCollaboratesCommunicates EffectivelyCustomer FocusDrives ResultsEnsures Accountability". If we extract the words, we get list: Action Oriented, Balances Stakeholders, Builds Networks, Collaborates, Communicates Effectively, Customer Focus, Drives Results, Ensures Accountability. We can make
- for each. For responsibilities: We have headings and paragraphs. We could make each responsibility as a
- containing the heading and its paragraph. That would preserve the text.
For the initial title and Old Mutual sentence: we can wrap in
. For the Job Description heading: we can wrap in
. For the closing date line: we can wrap in
or maybe
? It's a section header "Closing Date". According to rule, we should use
for section headers like Education, etc. So we wrap "Closing Date" in
. Then the date itself is a paragraph
. Similarly for Education heading:
Education
then the education detail in. For the final italic bold paragraph about appointment: we can wrap in
(preserving the ... internal tags? Actually we need to preserve the content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes
The appointment will be made from the designated group in line with the Employment Equity Plan of Old Mutual South Africa and the specific business unit in question.
. That's HTML tags inside. We need to preserve the content word-for-word, meaning we should keep those tags as part of the text? The instruction: "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". The original content includes those tags. So we should keep them exactly as they appear, not strip them. However we are supposed to output clean semantic HTML, using only,
,
- . We cannot keep or tags because they are not allowed per rules (no CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
tags). It didn't forbid or , but the rules only specify which tags to use:for paragraphs,
for section headers,
- for list items. It didn't say we cannot use other tags like or . However the instruction: "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers ... Use
- for list items ... No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". It doesn't explicitly forbid or . But to be safe, we could preserve them as they are, because they are part of original content. However the earlier instruction: "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." It didn't say we cannot use other tags. But the earlier part: "You receive a plain-text job description. Your ONLY job is to format it as clean semantic HTML." The rules
- for list items ... No CSS classes, no inline styles, no
- for list items. It didn't say we cannot use other tags like or . However the instruction: "Use
- . We cannot keep or tags because they are not allowed per rules (no CSS classes, no inline styles, no
- for list items is a directive. So we should follow it.
Thus we need to convert the skills string into list items, preserving the words and commas as part of each item? The original had commas separating items; we could keep the commas inside the li except for the last item which had no trailing comma. That would preserve the exact sequence of characters if we also include the spaces after commas? Let's think: Original: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Direct Selling, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships"
If we produce:
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). But if we don't, we might be violating the rule. However the rule also says "If text has no clear sections, just wrap paragraphs in
tags. We need to convert them to something? The rule says use for section headers. But these are sub-sections under Responsibilities. Could treat each responsibility as a list item with the heading as part of the item? The original content includes headings and paragraphs. We must preserve all original content word-for-word. So we cannot drop the headings. We need to keep the headings exactly as they appear, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags. The rule says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, etc.). It doesn't forbid using other heading levels for sub-sections? It says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). It doesn't say we cannot use other heading levels for other headings, but we should follow the instruction: Use for section headers. It might be implied that we should use for those specific section headers, but other headings could be
for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, etc.). It doesn't forbid using other heading levels for sub-sections? It says use for section headers (e.g., Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). It doesn't say we cannot use other heading levels for other headings, but we should follow the instruction: Use for section headers. It might be implied that we should use for those specific section headers, but other headings could be
for section headers. It might be implied that we should use for those specific section headers, but other headings could be
? However the instruction: "Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role)". It doesn't forbid using or for other headings, but to be safe, we could convert all headings to if they are section headers. But the responsibility subheadings like "Customer Service" could be considered a subsection; maybe we should treat them as
for other headings, but to be safe, we could convert all headings to if they are section headers. But the responsibility subheadings like "Customer Service" could be considered a subsection; maybe we should treat them as
or ? But we cannot add extra text; we can only wrap existing text in tags. So we could wrap "Customer Service" in as well, but that would be using
for a subsection, which is okay? The rule didn't forbid using
for other headings, just said use
for section headers (e.g., ...). It didn't say only those. So we can use
for any heading we encounter.
But we also need to use
How well do you match?
Get an instant AI match score for this role — free, takes 3 minutes.
Tailor your CV for this role
The concierge rewrites your whole CV and writes a matching cover letter for this job — opens right here, nothing to paste.
Tailor My CV to This Job ✍️Free cover letter for this job
Upload your CV and get a tailored cover letter in seconds — free, no account needed.
Generate a Cover Letter 📝Let jobs find you
Leave your email and our AI matches you to new jobs across 24 African markets — free. You wait for the call.
Add your CV for real matches
Upload your CV and we score every new job against your real experience — only strong matches reach your inbox. Optional, but it makes your matches far sharper.
You're in.
We'll email you the moment a job matches your profile. Check your inbox for a welcome from My Job Concierge.
I'm ECHO, your MJC career assistant. I can help you find jobs, explore career tools, and connect with opportunities across Africa.