Why?
Is there some official CV format that applicants are expected to follow, which is guaranteed to be parsable by ATS, so that un-ATS-parsable CV shows incapability of following rules?
You're looking for a new senior developer, starting in the next few weeks. That means with your 4 rounds of interviews, you want to start the first round within the next week or 2. Your engineers have capacity to do the 4 rounds for ~10 applicants in that time.
You receive 1000 applications.
You don't have time to read every resume and start calling people in the next few days, so you build a tool to automate it. The tool parses text from PDFs, tries to categorise it into "experience", "projects", "location", so you can exclude people with <4 years of experience and not in your country, and find those whose projects showed skills you're looking for.
The tool correctly parses 500 of the resumes, and finds 50 who match your experience, location and skill requirements. Now you manually read those 50 properly, and reach out to the ones who stand out.
That tool is the ATS. You don't care about the 500 who couldn't be parsed, or whether some of the 470 were parsed incorrectly. It's not a test of the user's ability to follow rules. It's just a necessity to get hiring done in a reasonable time frame.
A simple way would be to make the job listing quite specific about expectations and say "Please do not apply if you can't do/don't know X and Y at minimum. If you can/do, submit your resume with a note affirming that you can/do." Any resume that doesn't come with that note can get canned, some people will lie, but you filter out the lowest effort applications which seems to me a better proxy for quality than beating your adversarial AI in a blind game.
Seems to me that "great way to" in this case is sarcastic. It's a "great" way for HR people to solve the problem because it requires zero effort even if its stymies both applicants, and their own efforts to uncover worthy candidates.
In the end, as is the case with so much of our modern world, the root of the problem is some company overselling the capability of their AI-driven product and some executive with no accurate way to gauge the drawbacks saying "wow we can spend $x thousand per year for this service that will save us 3($x) thousand in recruiting payroll. I'm in." In the ATS world, resumes require SEO to be useful for most companies... that is, unless you're giving it to a human being that asked you for it because you already have a rapport with them.
