Put the relevant thing first, even if it disrupts the order

Chronology is a convention, not an obligation.

The reverse chronological format is standard and it is not always right. It puts the most recent role first, which is correct when the most recent role is the most relevant and actively harmful when it is not. Somebody returning to a field after a period elsewhere, or applying across sectors, is led by convention into opening with their least relevant material.

The alternative is not to abandon chronology, which readers rely on for continuity, but to precede it with a short section that does the positioning: three or four lines naming the relevant capability with specific evidence. That occupies the space a reader looks at first and answers their question before the chronology begins.

The same principle applies within a role. The bullet points under a position are typically listed in the order the work was important to the employer, and they should be listed in the order relevant to this application. That means editing them for each role, which is why applications should be fewer and more targeted.

The test is mechanical. Look at the top third of the first page only and ask whether somebody skimming would see the main thing the advertisement asked for. If not, that is the edit, and it is usually a rearrangement rather than any new writing.

There is a further reordering worth considering for anybody with a long history, which is what to do with the early roles. Fifteen years of detail on positions held before the relevant experience began occupies the second page and contributes almost nothing. Compressing them to a line each, or to a single summary line, is not concealment and it removes the material a scanning reader has to travel through to reach what matters.