Job Description
We need to output clean semantic HTML using for section headers,
,
for section headers, - for list items. Must preserve all original content word-for-word, no additions, deletions, rephrasing. Must not add CSS classes, inline styles, ,
. Must not add commentary. Must only output HTML.
We need to parse the given raw text and extract sections: It seems there is a title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" maybe not needed as header? The instructions: Use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections and wrap their headings in . The raw text includes headings like Skills, Competencies, Education, Closing Date. Also there are tags with competency names? Actually there are tags with competency names? Let's examine.
The raw text:
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
Skills
Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
Competencies
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
Communicates Effectively
Customer Focus
Ensures Accountability
Instills Trust
Interpersonal Savvy
Manages Complexity
Education
NQF Level 5 - Higher, Advance or Occupational Certificate or equivalent
Closing Date
28 July 2026 , 23:59
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.
The Old Mutual Story!
We need to preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes HTML tags? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. But we are to format it as clean semantic HTML using ,
, - . So we must transform the given raw text into new HTML, but we must preserve the content word-for-word. That means we cannot change the text inside tags, but we can restructure tags? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. That suggests we cannot alter the text itself, but we can wrap it in new tags? However we must not add or remove content. But we are allowed to change tags? The instruction says "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." So we need to output HTML that is clean semantic, using
,
, - . But we must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the text inside , , etc. But we can change the surrounding tags? The original has many empty
and
tags. We need to preserve them? Probably we need to keep the same text content, but we can restructure tags to meet the rules. However "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase" suggests we cannot change the text itself, but we can change the markup? The original includes HTML tags like
etc. We are told not to use inline styles, no CSS classes, no
, no
. So we must remove those style attributes. But that would be removing content? The style attribute is part of the tag, but the text inside remains. The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Removing style attributes might be considered removing content? But style attributes are not content; they are attributes. The text inside remains unchanged. So we can strip attributes but keep the inner text. That should be okay.
We need to produce clean semantic HTML: Use for intro paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections: The raw text has headings like "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also there are competency names each on separate lines? Actually they are inside tags but empty? Let's parse.
The raw text includes:
Skills
... then a long list of skills separated by commas, no line breaks? Actually after Skills there is a paragraph with the list of skills separated by commas, then a then then ... Wait the structure:
After Skills there are two empty then the list of skills (text) then then then Competencies
then empty paragraphs then "Balances Stakeholders" etc.
It seems the raw text is messy. But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly the same text but restructured into semantic HTML using ,
, - . However we cannot add or remove content. So we must keep the same words, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags.
We need to produce a clean semantic HTML that uses
for paragraphs and
for section headers. Also use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to convert the list of skills into
- items. But the original skills are separated by commas, not line breaks. Should we split them? The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". So we need to convert the skills list into list items. But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we split by commas and create separate
- items, we are altering the content? Actually we are not adding or removing words, just reorganizing them into list items. The original text includes the skills separated by commas and spaces. If we split them into separate
- items, we are inserting line breaks and
- tags, but the words remain the same. That should be okay as we are not adding or removing words. However we need to preserve the exact sequence of words? The instruction says "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Splitting into separate list items might be considered a reformat but not a rephrase. It might be acceptable.
But we must be careful not to change the text inside the list items. So we need to take the skills string and split it into individual items? The original string: "Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". That's a single paragraph with commas separating items. To convert to
- , we could wrap each item in
- but we need to separate them. We could replace commas with
- maybe? But that would modify the content (replace commas). That would be removing commas? Actually we could keep commas inside the
- content? But list items should not have commas? It's okay to have commas inside the
- text. The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't say we must split by commas; we could just wrap the entire paragraph as a single
- item. But that would not be a list of items; but it's still a list item. However the instruction likely expects each skill as separate
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word; we cannot add or remove commas. If we split, we need to keep commas? Actually we could keep the commas as part of the text inside each
- . For example:
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer Feedback Management,
... but that adds commas at end and extra spaces. That would be adding characters (commas) that were already there? The original had commas separating items; we could keep them as part of the text but then each - would have trailing comma except last. That would be adding extra commas? Not adding new words, but adding punctuation that already existed? Actually the original had commas between items; if we split, we need to keep those commas somewhere. Could put them at end of each item except last. That would be adding a comma after each item (which already existed before the next item). But we would be moving commas. That might be considered a rephrase? Might be okay.
But maybe simpler: Keep the entire skills paragraph as a single
- inside a
. That would preserve the exact text (including commas). So we would have:
- Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
That preserves the original text exactly, just wrapped in - . That seems safe.
Similarly for competencies: They appear as separate lines with tags containing competency names? Actually the raw text shows:
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
...
It seems each competency is on its own line, but the tags are empty? Actually the pattern: "Balances Stakeholders" means the text "Balances Stakeholders" is before an empty . Then next line is "" then "Builds Networks" etc. So the competency names are not inside
tags; they are outside. The tags are empty. So the competency names are just plain text preceding empty tags. This is confusing.
But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly those strings. Perhaps we can treat each competency name as a separate paragraph? The instruction says use for section headers, not for competency names. So maybe we should not create headers for competencies; just treat them as part of the text. But we need to preserve them.
The raw text also includes "Education" and "Closing Date" headings with tags. Those should be section headers? The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So "Education" and "Closing Date" are section headers. So we should wrap them in . Also "Skills" and "Competencies" maybe also headings? But they are not in the list of example headers, but they are headings. The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. ...). So we can use for any section header we identify. So we can wrap "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" in . Also maybe "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" could be a title? Not a section header. Could be just a paragraph.
We need to output only HTML, no extra commentary.
We must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the tags? The original uses for bold. We can keep them? The instruction says use
for intro paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
for section headers. The original headings are wrapped in tags, not . We can wrap the whole heading (including tags) in . For example: Skills
. That would preserve the tags and the text "Skills". That seems okay.
Similarly for "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also the competency names appear as plain text before empty tags. We need to preserve them. Perhaps we can just output them as paragraphs (
...
) since they are not headings. But they are part of the content. The instruction 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 must use for all headings; but we should use for section headers. So we can treat "Competencies" as a section header and wrap it in . The competency names themselves are not headings; they are just items. Could be listed as - items? The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we convert each competency name into
- , we need to keep the text exactly as is. The competency names are "Balances Stakeholders", "Builds Networks", "Communicates Effectively", "Customer Focus", "Ensures Accountability", "Instills Trust", "Interpersonal Savvy", "Manages Complexity". They appear each on separate lines, but there are empty tags between them. The original text includes those tags. We need to preserve them? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. So we must keep those tags as they appear. But we are not allowed to use or
or inline styles, but is not prohibited. However the instruction says use for section headers, but doesn't forbid other heading tags. However we might want to keep them as is? But we need to produce clean semantic HTML using only
,
, - . The instruction says "Use
for section headers (e.g. ...)" but doesn't say we cannot use other tags. However the rule "No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". So we can use maybe? But it's not listed as allowed. The instruction only defines allowed tags:
,
, , - . It doesn't mention
. So we should not use . So we need to convert those competency names into something else, perhaps as
or
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
tags are not considered content; they are just tags.
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 ✍️
,
. Must not add commentary. Must only output HTML. We need to parse the given raw text and extract sections: It seems there is a title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" maybe not needed as header? The instructions: Use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections and wrap their headings in
,
. Must not add commentary. Must only output HTML. We need to parse the given raw text and extract sections: It seems there is a title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" maybe not needed as header? The instructions: Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections and wrap their headings in . The raw text includes headings like Skills, Competencies, Education, Closing Date. Also there are tags with competency names? Actually there are tags with competency names? Let's examine.
The raw text:
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
Skills
Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer RelationshipsCompetencies
Balances Stakeholders Builds Networks Communicates Effectively Customer Focus Ensures Accountability Instills Trust Interpersonal Savvy Manages ComplexityEducation
NQF Level 5 - Higher, Advance or Occupational Certificate or equivalentClosing Date
28 July 2026 , 23:59The 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.
The Old Mutual Story!
We need to preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes HTML tags? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. But we are to format it as clean semantic HTML using,
, - . So we must transform the given raw text into new HTML, but we must preserve the content word-for-word. That means we cannot change the text inside tags, but we can restructure tags? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. That suggests we cannot alter the text itself, but we can wrap it in new tags? However we must not add or remove content. But we are allowed to change tags? The instruction says "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." So we need to output HTML that is clean semantic, using
,
, - . But we must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the text inside , , etc. But we can change the surrounding tags? The original has many empty
and
tags. We need to preserve them? Probably we need to keep the same text content, but we can restructure tags to meet the rules. However "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase" suggests we cannot change the text itself, but we can change the markup? The original includes HTML tags like
etc. We are told not to use inline styles, no CSS classes, no
, no
. So we must remove those style attributes. But that would be removing content? The style attribute is part of the tag, but the text inside remains. The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Removing style attributes might be considered removing content? But style attributes are not content; they are attributes. The text inside remains unchanged. So we can strip attributes but keep the inner text. That should be okay.
We need to produce clean semantic HTML: Use for intro paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections: The raw text has headings like "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also there are competency names each on separate lines? Actually they are inside tags but empty? Let's parse.
The raw text includes:
Skills
... then a long list of skills separated by commas, no line breaks? Actually after Skills there is a paragraph with the list of skills separated by commas, then a then then ... Wait the structure:
After Skills there are two empty then the list of skills (text) then then then Competencies
then empty paragraphs then "Balances Stakeholders" etc.
It seems the raw text is messy. But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly the same text but restructured into semantic HTML using ,
, - . However we cannot add or remove content. So we must keep the same words, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags.
We need to produce a clean semantic HTML that uses
for paragraphs and
for section headers. Also use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to convert the list of skills into
- items. But the original skills are separated by commas, not line breaks. Should we split them? The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". So we need to convert the skills list into list items. But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we split by commas and create separate
- items, we are altering the content? Actually we are not adding or removing words, just reorganizing them into list items. The original text includes the skills separated by commas and spaces. If we split them into separate
- items, we are inserting line breaks and
- tags, but the words remain the same. That should be okay as we are not adding or removing words. However we need to preserve the exact sequence of words? The instruction says "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Splitting into separate list items might be considered a reformat but not a rephrase. It might be acceptable.
But we must be careful not to change the text inside the list items. So we need to take the skills string and split it into individual items? The original string: "Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". That's a single paragraph with commas separating items. To convert to
- , we could wrap each item in
- but we need to separate them. We could replace commas with
- maybe? But that would modify the content (replace commas). That would be removing commas? Actually we could keep commas inside the
- content? But list items should not have commas? It's okay to have commas inside the
- text. The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't say we must split by commas; we could just wrap the entire paragraph as a single
- item. But that would not be a list of items; but it's still a list item. However the instruction likely expects each skill as separate
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word; we cannot add or remove commas. If we split, we need to keep commas? Actually we could keep the commas as part of the text inside each
- . For example:
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer Feedback Management,
... but that adds commas at end and extra spaces. That would be adding characters (commas) that were already there? The original had commas separating items; we could keep them as part of the text but then each - would have trailing comma except last. That would be adding extra commas? Not adding new words, but adding punctuation that already existed? Actually the original had commas between items; if we split, we need to keep those commas somewhere. Could put them at end of each item except last. That would be adding a comma after each item (which already existed before the next item). But we would be moving commas. That might be considered a rephrase? Might be okay.
But maybe simpler: Keep the entire skills paragraph as a single
- inside a
. That would preserve the exact text (including commas). So we would have:
- Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
That preserves the original text exactly, just wrapped in - . That seems safe.
Similarly for competencies: They appear as separate lines with tags containing competency names? Actually the raw text shows:
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
...
It seems each competency is on its own line, but the tags are empty? Actually the pattern: "Balances Stakeholders" means the text "Balances Stakeholders" is before an empty . Then next line is "" then "Builds Networks" etc. So the competency names are not inside
tags; they are outside. The tags are empty. So the competency names are just plain text preceding empty tags. This is confusing.
But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly those strings. Perhaps we can treat each competency name as a separate paragraph? The instruction says use for section headers, not for competency names. So maybe we should not create headers for competencies; just treat them as part of the text. But we need to preserve them.
The raw text also includes "Education" and "Closing Date" headings with tags. Those should be section headers? The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So "Education" and "Closing Date" are section headers. So we should wrap them in . Also "Skills" and "Competencies" maybe also headings? But they are not in the list of example headers, but they are headings. The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. ...). So we can use for any section header we identify. So we can wrap "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" in . Also maybe "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" could be a title? Not a section header. Could be just a paragraph.
We need to output only HTML, no extra commentary.
We must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the tags? The original uses for bold. We can keep them? The instruction says use
for intro paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
for section headers. The original headings are wrapped in tags, not . We can wrap the whole heading (including tags) in . For example: Skills
. That would preserve the tags and the text "Skills". That seems okay.
Similarly for "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also the competency names appear as plain text before empty tags. We need to preserve them. Perhaps we can just output them as paragraphs (
...
) since they are not headings. But they are part of the content. The instruction 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 must use for all headings; but we should use for section headers. So we can treat "Competencies" as a section header and wrap it in . The competency names themselves are not headings; they are just items. Could be listed as - items? The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we convert each competency name into
- , we need to keep the text exactly as is. The competency names are "Balances Stakeholders", "Builds Networks", "Communicates Effectively", "Customer Focus", "Ensures Accountability", "Instills Trust", "Interpersonal Savvy", "Manages Complexity". They appear each on separate lines, but there are empty tags between them. The original text includes those tags. We need to preserve them? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. So we must keep those tags as they appear. But we are not allowed to use or
or inline styles, but is not prohibited. However the instruction says use for section headers, but doesn't forbid other heading tags. However we might want to keep them as is? But we need to produce clean semantic HTML using only
,
, - . The instruction says "Use
for section headers (e.g. ...)" but doesn't say we cannot use other tags. However the rule "No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". So we can use maybe? But it's not listed as allowed. The instruction only defines allowed tags:
,
, , - . It doesn't mention
. So we should not use . So we need to convert those competency names into something else, perhaps as
or
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
tags are not considered content; they are just tags.
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 ✍️
,
, - . But we must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the text inside , , etc. But we can change the surrounding tags? The original has many empty
and
tags. We need to preserve them? Probably we need to keep the same text content, but we can restructure tags to meet the rules. However "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase" suggests we cannot change the text itself, but we can change the markup? The original includes HTML tags like
etc. We are told not to use inline styles, no CSS classes, no
, no
. So we must remove those style attributes. But that would be removing content? The style attribute is part of the tag, but the text inside remains. The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Removing style attributes might be considered removing content? But style attributes are not content; they are attributes. The text inside remains unchanged. So we can strip attributes but keep the inner text. That should be okay.
We need to produce clean semantic HTML: Use for intro paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections: The raw text has headings like "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also there are competency names each on separate lines? Actually they are inside tags but empty? Let's parse.
The raw text includes:
Skills
... then a long list of skills separated by commas, no line breaks? Actually after Skills there is a paragraph with the list of skills separated by commas, then a then then ... Wait the structure:
After Skills there are two empty then the list of skills (text) then then then Competencies
then empty paragraphs then "Balances Stakeholders" etc.
It seems the raw text is messy. But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly the same text but restructured into semantic HTML using ,
, - . However we cannot add or remove content. So we must keep the same words, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags.
We need to produce a clean semantic HTML that uses
for paragraphs and
for section headers. Also use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to convert the list of skills into
- items. But the original skills are separated by commas, not line breaks. Should we split them? The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". So we need to convert the skills list into list items. But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we split by commas and create separate
- items, we are altering the content? Actually we are not adding or removing words, just reorganizing them into list items. The original text includes the skills separated by commas and spaces. If we split them into separate
- items, we are inserting line breaks and
- tags, but the words remain the same. That should be okay as we are not adding or removing words. However we need to preserve the exact sequence of words? The instruction says "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Splitting into separate list items might be considered a reformat but not a rephrase. It might be acceptable.
But we must be careful not to change the text inside the list items. So we need to take the skills string and split it into individual items? The original string: "Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". That's a single paragraph with commas separating items. To convert to
- , we could wrap each item in
- but we need to separate them. We could replace commas with
- maybe? But that would modify the content (replace commas). That would be removing commas? Actually we could keep commas inside the
- content? But list items should not have commas? It's okay to have commas inside the
- text. The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't say we must split by commas; we could just wrap the entire paragraph as a single
- item. But that would not be a list of items; but it's still a list item. However the instruction likely expects each skill as separate
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word; we cannot add or remove commas. If we split, we need to keep commas? Actually we could keep the commas as part of the text inside each
- . For example:
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer Feedback Management,
... but that adds commas at end and extra spaces. That would be adding characters (commas) that were already there? The original had commas separating items; we could keep them as part of the text but then each - would have trailing comma except last. That would be adding extra commas? Not adding new words, but adding punctuation that already existed? Actually the original had commas between items; if we split, we need to keep those commas somewhere. Could put them at end of each item except last. That would be adding a comma after each item (which already existed before the next item). But we would be moving commas. That might be considered a rephrase? Might be okay.
But maybe simpler: Keep the entire skills paragraph as a single
- inside a
. That would preserve the exact text (including commas). So we would have:
- Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
That preserves the original text exactly, just wrapped in - . That seems safe.
Similarly for competencies: They appear as separate lines with tags containing competency names? Actually the raw text shows:
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
...
It seems each competency is on its own line, but the tags are empty? Actually the pattern: "Balances Stakeholders" means the text "Balances Stakeholders" is before an empty . Then next line is "" then "Builds Networks" etc. So the competency names are not inside
tags; they are outside. The tags are empty. So the competency names are just plain text preceding empty tags. This is confusing.
But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly those strings. Perhaps we can treat each competency name as a separate paragraph? The instruction says use for section headers, not for competency names. So maybe we should not create headers for competencies; just treat them as part of the text. But we need to preserve them.
The raw text also includes "Education" and "Closing Date" headings with tags. Those should be section headers? The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So "Education" and "Closing Date" are section headers. So we should wrap them in . Also "Skills" and "Competencies" maybe also headings? But they are not in the list of example headers, but they are headings. The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. ...). So we can use for any section header we identify. So we can wrap "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" in . Also maybe "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" could be a title? Not a section header. Could be just a paragraph.
We need to output only HTML, no extra commentary.
We must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the tags? The original uses for bold. We can keep them? The instruction says use
for intro paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
for section headers. The original headings are wrapped in tags, not . We can wrap the whole heading (including tags) in . For example: Skills
. That would preserve the tags and the text "Skills". That seems okay.
Similarly for "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also the competency names appear as plain text before empty tags. We need to preserve them. Perhaps we can just output them as paragraphs (
...
) since they are not headings. But they are part of the content. The instruction 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 must use for all headings; but we should use for section headers. So we can treat "Competencies" as a section header and wrap it in . The competency names themselves are not headings; they are just items. Could be listed as - items? The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we convert each competency name into
- , we need to keep the text exactly as is. The competency names are "Balances Stakeholders", "Builds Networks", "Communicates Effectively", "Customer Focus", "Ensures Accountability", "Instills Trust", "Interpersonal Savvy", "Manages Complexity". They appear each on separate lines, but there are empty tags between them. The original text includes those tags. We need to preserve them? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. So we must keep those tags as they appear. But we are not allowed to use or
or inline styles, but is not prohibited. However the instruction says use for section headers, but doesn't forbid other heading tags. However we might want to keep them as is? But we need to produce clean semantic HTML using only
,
, - . The instruction says "Use
for section headers (e.g. ...)" but doesn't say we cannot use other tags. However the rule "No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". So we can use maybe? But it's not listed as allowed. The instruction only defines allowed tags:
,
, , - . It doesn't mention
. So we should not use . So we need to convert those competency names into something else, perhaps as
or
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
tags are not considered content; they are just tags.
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 ✍️
and
tags. We need to preserve them? Probably we need to keep the same text content, but we can restructure tags to meet the rules. However "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase" suggests we cannot change the text itself, but we can change the markup? The original includes HTML tags like
etc. We are told not to use inline styles, no CSS classes, no
, no
. So we must remove those style attributes. But that would be removing content? The style attribute is part of the tag, but the text inside remains. The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Removing style attributes might be considered removing content? But style attributes are not content; they are attributes. The text inside remains unchanged. So we can strip attributes but keep the inner text. That should be okay. We need to produce clean semantic HTML: Use,
. So we must remove those style attributes. But that would be removing content? The style attribute is part of the tag, but the text inside remains. The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Removing style attributes might be considered removing content? But style attributes are not content; they are attributes. The text inside remains unchanged. So we can strip attributes but keep the inner text. That should be okay. We need to produce clean semantic HTML: Use
for intro paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we need to identify sections: The raw text has headings like "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also there are competency names each on separate lines? Actually they are inside tags but empty? Let's parse. The raw text includes:
Skills
... then a long list of skills separated by commas, no line breaks? Actually after Skills there is a paragraph with the list of skills separated by commas, then a then then ... Wait the structure: After Skills there are two empty then the list of skills (text) then then thenCompetencies
then empty paragraphs then "Balances Stakeholders" etc. It seems the raw text is messy. But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly the same text but restructured into semantic HTML using,
, - . However we cannot add or remove content. So we must keep the same words, but we can wrap them in appropriate tags.
We need to produce a clean semantic HTML that uses
for paragraphs and
for section headers. Also use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to convert the list of skills into
- items. But the original skills are separated by commas, not line breaks. Should we split them? The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". So we need to convert the skills list into list items. But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we split by commas and create separate
- items, we are altering the content? Actually we are not adding or removing words, just reorganizing them into list items. The original text includes the skills separated by commas and spaces. If we split them into separate
- items, we are inserting line breaks and
- tags, but the words remain the same. That should be okay as we are not adding or removing words. However we need to preserve the exact sequence of words? The instruction says "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Splitting into separate list items might be considered a reformat but not a rephrase. It might be acceptable.
But we must be careful not to change the text inside the list items. So we need to take the skills string and split it into individual items? The original string: "Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". That's a single paragraph with commas separating items. To convert to
- , we could wrap each item in
- but we need to separate them. We could replace commas with
- maybe? But that would modify the content (replace commas). That would be removing commas? Actually we could keep commas inside the
- content? But list items should not have commas? It's okay to have commas inside the
- text. The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't say we must split by commas; we could just wrap the entire paragraph as a single
- item. But that would not be a list of items; but it's still a list item. However the instruction likely expects each skill as separate
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word; we cannot add or remove commas. If we split, we need to keep commas? Actually we could keep the commas as part of the text inside each
- . For example:
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer Feedback Management,
... but that adds commas at end and extra spaces. That would be adding characters (commas) that were already there? The original had commas separating items; we could keep them as part of the text but then each - would have trailing comma except last. That would be adding extra commas? Not adding new words, but adding punctuation that already existed? Actually the original had commas between items; if we split, we need to keep those commas somewhere. Could put them at end of each item except last. That would be adding a comma after each item (which already existed before the next item). But we would be moving commas. That might be considered a rephrase? Might be okay.
But maybe simpler: Keep the entire skills paragraph as a single
- inside a
. That would preserve the exact text (including commas). So we would have:
- Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
That preserves the original text exactly, just wrapped in - . That seems safe.
Similarly for competencies: They appear as separate lines with tags containing competency names? Actually the raw text shows:
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
...
It seems each competency is on its own line, but the tags are empty? Actually the pattern: "Balances Stakeholders" means the text "Balances Stakeholders" is before an empty . Then next line is "" then "Builds Networks" etc. So the competency names are not inside
tags; they are outside. The tags are empty. So the competency names are just plain text preceding empty tags. This is confusing.
But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly those strings. Perhaps we can treat each competency name as a separate paragraph? The instruction says use for section headers, not for competency names. So maybe we should not create headers for competencies; just treat them as part of the text. But we need to preserve them.
The raw text also includes "Education" and "Closing Date" headings with tags. Those should be section headers? The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So "Education" and "Closing Date" are section headers. So we should wrap them in . Also "Skills" and "Competencies" maybe also headings? But they are not in the list of example headers, but they are headings. The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. ...). So we can use for any section header we identify. So we can wrap "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" in . Also maybe "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" could be a title? Not a section header. Could be just a paragraph.
We need to output only HTML, no extra commentary.
We must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the tags? The original uses for bold. We can keep them? The instruction says use
for intro paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
for section headers. The original headings are wrapped in tags, not . We can wrap the whole heading (including tags) in . For example: Skills
. That would preserve the tags and the text "Skills". That seems okay.
Similarly for "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also the competency names appear as plain text before empty tags. We need to preserve them. Perhaps we can just output them as paragraphs (
...
) since they are not headings. But they are part of the content. The instruction 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 must use for all headings; but we should use for section headers. So we can treat "Competencies" as a section header and wrap it in . The competency names themselves are not headings; they are just items. Could be listed as - items? The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we convert each competency name into
- , we need to keep the text exactly as is. The competency names are "Balances Stakeholders", "Builds Networks", "Communicates Effectively", "Customer Focus", "Ensures Accountability", "Instills Trust", "Interpersonal Savvy", "Manages Complexity". They appear each on separate lines, but there are empty tags between them. The original text includes those tags. We need to preserve them? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. So we must keep those tags as they appear. But we are not allowed to use or
or inline styles, but is not prohibited. However the instruction says use for section headers, but doesn't forbid other heading tags. However we might want to keep them as is? But we need to produce clean semantic HTML using only
,
, - . The instruction says "Use
for section headers (e.g. ...)" but doesn't say we cannot use other tags. However the rule "No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". So we can use maybe? But it's not listed as allowed. The instruction only defines allowed tags:
,
, , - . It doesn't mention
. So we should not use . So we need to convert those competency names into something else, perhaps as
or
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
tags are not considered content; they are just tags.
for paragraphs and
for section headers. Also use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to convert the list of skills into
- items. But the original skills are separated by commas, not line breaks. Should we split them? The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". So we need to convert the skills list into list items. But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we split by commas and create separate
- items, we are altering the content? Actually we are not adding or removing words, just reorganizing them into list items. The original text includes the skills separated by commas and spaces. If we split them into separate
- items, we are inserting line breaks and
- tags, but the words remain the same. That should be okay as we are not adding or removing words. However we need to preserve the exact sequence of words? The instruction says "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Splitting into separate list items might be considered a reformat but not a rephrase. It might be acceptable.
But we must be careful not to change the text inside the list items. So we need to take the skills string and split it into individual items? The original string: "Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". That's a single paragraph with commas separating items. To convert to
- , we could wrap each item in
- but we need to separate them. We could replace commas with
- maybe? But that would modify the content (replace commas). That would be removing commas? Actually we could keep commas inside the
- content? But list items should not have commas? It's okay to have commas inside the
- text. The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't say we must split by commas; we could just wrap the entire paragraph as a single
- item. But that would not be a list of items; but it's still a list item. However the instruction likely expects each skill as separate
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word; we cannot add or remove commas. If we split, we need to keep commas? Actually we could keep the commas as part of the text inside each
- . For example:
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer Feedback Management,
... but that adds commas at end and extra spaces. That would be adding characters (commas) that were already there? The original had commas separating items; we could keep them as part of the text but then each - would have trailing comma except last. That would be adding extra commas? Not adding new words, but adding punctuation that already existed? Actually the original had commas between items; if we split, we need to keep those commas somewhere. Could put them at end of each item except last. That would be adding a comma after each item (which already existed before the next item). But we would be moving commas. That might be considered a rephrase? Might be okay.
But maybe simpler: Keep the entire skills paragraph as a single
- inside a
. That would preserve the exact text (including commas). So we would have:
- Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
That preserves the original text exactly, just wrapped in - . That seems safe.
Similarly for competencies: They appear as separate lines with tags containing competency names? Actually the raw text shows:
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
...
It seems each competency is on its own line, but the tags are empty? Actually the pattern: "Balances Stakeholders" means the text "Balances Stakeholders" is before an empty . Then next line is "" then "Builds Networks" etc. So the competency names are not inside
tags; they are outside. The tags are empty. So the competency names are just plain text preceding empty tags. This is confusing.
But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly those strings. Perhaps we can treat each competency name as a separate paragraph? The instruction says use for section headers, not for competency names. So maybe we should not create headers for competencies; just treat them as part of the text. But we need to preserve them.
The raw text also includes "Education" and "Closing Date" headings with tags. Those should be section headers? The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So "Education" and "Closing Date" are section headers. So we should wrap them in . Also "Skills" and "Competencies" maybe also headings? But they are not in the list of example headers, but they are headings. The instruction says use for section headers (e.g. ...). So we can use for any section header we identify. So we can wrap "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" in . Also maybe "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" could be a title? Not a section header. Could be just a paragraph.
We need to output only HTML, no extra commentary.
We must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the tags? The original uses for bold. We can keep them? The instruction says use
for intro paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
for section headers. The original headings are wrapped in tags, not . We can wrap the whole heading (including tags) in . For example: Skills
. That would preserve the tags and the text "Skills". That seems okay.
Similarly for "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also the competency names appear as plain text before empty tags. We need to preserve them. Perhaps we can just output them as paragraphs (
...
) since they are not headings. But they are part of the content. The instruction 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 must use for all headings; but we should use for section headers. So we can treat "Competencies" as a section header and wrap it in . The competency names themselves are not headings; they are just items. Could be listed as - items? The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we convert each competency name into
- , we need to keep the text exactly as is. The competency names are "Balances Stakeholders", "Builds Networks", "Communicates Effectively", "Customer Focus", "Ensures Accountability", "Instills Trust", "Interpersonal Savvy", "Manages Complexity". They appear each on separate lines, but there are empty tags between them. The original text includes those tags. We need to preserve them? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. So we must keep those tags as they appear. But we are not allowed to use or
or inline styles, but is not prohibited. However the instruction says use for section headers, but doesn't forbid other heading tags. However we might want to keep them as is? But we need to produce clean semantic HTML using only
,
, - . The instruction says "Use
for section headers (e.g. ...)" but doesn't say we cannot use other tags. However the rule "No CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags". So we can use maybe? But it's not listed as allowed. The instruction only defines allowed tags:
,
, , - . It doesn't mention
. So we should not use . So we need to convert those competency names into something else, perhaps as
or
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
tags are not considered content; they are just tags.
- items. But the original skills are separated by commas, not line breaks. Should we split them? The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". So we need to convert the skills list into list items. But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we split by commas and create separate
- items, we are altering the content? Actually we are not adding or removing words, just reorganizing them into list items. The original text includes the skills separated by commas and spaces. If we split them into separate
- items, we are inserting line breaks and
- tags, but the words remain the same. That should be okay as we are not adding or removing words. However we need to preserve the exact sequence of words? The instruction says "preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". Splitting into separate list items might be considered a reformat but not a rephrase. It might be acceptable.
But we must be careful not to change the text inside the list items. So we need to take the skills string and split it into individual items? The original string: "Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships". That's a single paragraph with commas separating items. To convert to
- , we could wrap each item in
- but we need to separate them. We could replace commas with
- maybe? But that would modify the content (replace commas). That would be removing commas? Actually we could keep commas inside the
- content? But list items should not have commas? It's okay to have commas inside the
- text. The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't say we must split by commas; we could just wrap the entire paragraph as a single
- item. But that would not be a list of items; but it's still a list item. However the instruction likely expects each skill as separate
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word; we cannot add or remove commas. If we split, we need to keep commas? Actually we could keep the commas as part of the text inside each
- . For example:
- Consultative Selling,
- Customer Feedback Management, ... but that adds commas at end and extra spaces. That would be adding characters (commas) that were already there? The original had commas separating items; we could keep them as part of the text but then each
- would have trailing comma except last. That would be adding extra commas? Not adding new words, but adding punctuation that already existed? Actually the original had commas between items; if we split, we need to keep those commas somewhere. Could put them at end of each item except last. That would be adding a comma after each item (which already existed before the next item). But we would be moving commas. That might be considered a rephrase? Might be okay. But maybe simpler: Keep the entire skills paragraph as a single
- inside a
- . That would preserve the exact text (including commas). So we would have:
- Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, Customer-Focused, Customer Service, Customer Understanding, Evaluating Information, Identifying Customer Needs, Identifying Sales Opportunities, Oral Communications, Probing Questions, Qualifying Prospects, Sales Data Management, Sales Software, Strategic Selling, Strengthening Customer Relationships
- . That seems safe.
Similarly for competencies: They appear as separate lines with tags containing competency names? Actually the raw text shows:
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
...
It seems each competency is on its own line, but the tags are empty? Actually the pattern: "Balances Stakeholders" means the text "Balances Stakeholders" is before an empty . Then next line is "" then "Builds Networks" etc. So the competency names are not inside
tags; they are outside. The tags are empty. So the competency names are just plain text preceding empty
tags. This is confusing. But we need to preserve all original content word-for-word. So we must output exactly those strings. Perhaps we can treat each competency name as a separate paragraph? The instruction says use
for section headers, not for competency names. So maybe we should not create headers for competencies; just treat them as part of the text. But we need to preserve them. The raw text also includes "Education" and "Closing Date" headings with tags. Those should be section headers? The instruction says use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So "Education" and "Closing Date" are section headers. So we should wrap them in
. Also "Skills" and "Competencies" maybe also headings? But they are not in the list of example headers, but they are headings. The instruction says use
for section headers (e.g. ...). So we can use
for any section header we identify. So we can wrap "Skills", "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date" in
. Also maybe "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" could be a title? Not a section header. Could be just a paragraph. We need to output only HTML, no extra commentary. We must preserve all original content word-for-word. That includes the tags? The original uses for bold. We can keep them? The instruction says use
for intro paragraphs and general text,
for section headers,
- for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
for section headers. The original headings are wrapped in tags, not
. We can wrap the whole heading (including tags) in
. For example:
Skills
. That would preserve the tags and the text "Skills". That seems okay. Similarly for "Competencies", "Education", "Closing Date". Also the competency names appear as plain text before emptytags. We need to preserve them. Perhaps we can just output them as paragraphs (
...
) since they are not headings. But they are part of the content. The instruction says usefor section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). It doesn't say we must use
for all headings; but we should use
for section headers. So we can treat "Competencies" as a section header and wrap it in
. The competency names themselves are not headings; they are just items. Could be listed as
- items? The instruction says use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word. If we convert each competency name into
- , we need to keep the text exactly as is. The competency names are "Balances Stakeholders", "Builds Networks", "Communicates Effectively", "Customer Focus", "Ensures Accountability", "Instills Trust", "Interpersonal Savvy", "Manages Complexity". They appear each on separate lines, but there are empty tags between them. The original text includes those tags. We need to preserve them? The instruction says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. So we must keep those tags as they appear. But we are not allowed to use or
or inline styles, butis not prohibited. However the instruction says use
for section headers, but doesn't forbid other heading tags. However we might want to keep them as is? But we need to produce clean semantic HTML using only
,
,
- . The instruction says "Use
for section headers (e.g. ...)" but doesn't say we cannot use other tags. However the rule "No CSS classes, no inline styles, no
s, no
tags". So we can usemaybe? But it's not listed as allowed. The instruction only defines allowed tags:
,
,
- ,
- . It doesn't mention
. So we should not use
. So we need to convert those competency names into something else, perhaps as
or
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
tags are not considered content; they are just tags.
- . But we must preserve the original content word-for-word, including the tags? The original includes tags that are empty. If we remove them, we would be removing content. That would violate preserving all original content. However maybe those empty
- . It doesn't mention
- . The instruction says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So maybe we should convert the competency names into list items? But they are not explicitly listed as a list; they are just separate lines. However they could be considered competencies list. So we could wrap them in
- items? The instruction says use
- for list items. It doesn't say we cannot keep tags. But we might want to keep them as they are part of the content. However we might need to preserve them word-for-word, so we should keep the tags as they appear. But the instruction also says "Do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". So we cannot remove the tags. So we must keep them. However we also need to use
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 ✍️My Job Concierge
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.
Almost there
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.
ECHO
Your MJC Assistant
I'm ECHO, your MJC career assistant. I can help you find jobs, explore career tools, and connect with opportunities across Africa.