Job Description
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). Use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). No CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
. Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. If text has no clear sections, just wrap paragraphs in tags. Return ONLY the HTML.
We need to parse the given job description text (which includes HTML tags with styles etc). We need to extract the content and produce clean HTML.
Given the raw input includes many tags with inline styles etc. We need to ignore those and produce semantic HTML.
We need to preserve original content word-for-word. That means we must keep the exact text content (including punctuation, spaces?) but we can reformat into HTML tags. We must not add or remove any content. So we need to output the same textual content, just wrapped in appropriate tags.
We need to identify sections: The text includes:
- "
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
"
- "Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
"
- Then empty paragraphs.
- "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor
"
- Then empty p.
- "We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
"
- Then empty p.
- "Skills
"
- Then empty p.
- Then empty p.
- Then a line: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, 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 p.
- Then ""
- Then "Competencies
"
- Then empty p.
- Then empty p.
- Then a series of lines each preceded by "" etc: "Action Oriented", then "", then "Balances Stakeholders", etc. Actually the pattern: after Competencies header, there is a series of competency names each preceded by an empty and then the competency text, then another empty . Let's extract them:
After Competencies header we have:
Action Oriented
Balances Stakeholders
Builds Networks
Collaborates
Communicates Effectively
Customer Focus
Decision Quality
Ensures Accountability
Then Education header:
Education
NQF Level 4 - Grade 12, School leaving Certificate, National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)
Then Closing Date header:
Closing Date
29 September 2026 , 23:59
Then italic bold note:
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 final emphasis:
The Old Mutual Story!
We need to produce HTML with for intro paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers. Use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). The content includes Skills list (comma-separated). Should we turn that into a
- list? The rule: Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to treat the Skills line as a list of skills, each item separated by commas. We need to split them into
- items. However we must preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. If we split the comma-separated string into separate
- items, we are not adding or removing content; we are just presenting same content but structured as list items. The content of each
- would be the skill phrase exactly as appears between commas. That should be okay because we are not altering the wording. However we need to ensure we don't add extra punctuation or spaces. The original line: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, 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". There's a trailing space? We'll keep each trimmed.
Similarly Competencies list: each line is a competency. Should we also treat as list? The rule says list items for duties, requirements, qualifications, skills. Competencies maybe not required to be list, but we could still use
- if we want. However the instruction: Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't forbid using for other things, but we should follow. For competencies we could just keep as paragraphs or maybe as
- as they are list-like. Safer to treat them as
- as they are items. But the rule says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". It doesn't say we cannot use for other items, but we should follow the pattern: if it's a list of items, we should use
- . The competencies are clearly a list. So we will use
- for competencies as well.
Education: It's a single line; we can keep as
.
Closing Date: single line.
The note about appointment: italic bold; we can keep as
with ... inside.
The final emphasis: we can keep as
with The Old Mutual Story!
(note double tags). We'll preserve.
Now we need to decide section headers: We have headings like Skills, Competencies, Education, Closing Date. Also there is an initial title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" maybe treat as ? It's like a tagline. Could be considered as introductory paragraph. The rule: Use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we should use for those specific section headers. For other headings like "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor" maybe it's a subheading? Not in list; we could treat as
or maybe
? The rule says use for section headers (e.g. ...). It doesn't forbid using for other headings, but we should follow the pattern: If it's a section header, use . The "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor" seems like a job title? Actually the job title is likely "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor"? That seems odd. Could be a mis-formatting. But we should preserve content. We'll treat it as a
maybe with ? The original had Aspires to be a Financial Advisor. So it's underlined bold. We'll preserve the text but we cannot use or because we cannot add inline styles? Actually we can keep and as they are HTML tags; the rule says no CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags. It doesn't forbid other tags like , , . So we can keep them. However we need to output clean semantic HTML; using and is presentational but allowed? The rule didn't forbid them. It only forbids CSS classes, inline styles, ,
. So we can keep , , . However we might want to replace with semantic tags like and but that would be altering content? Changing to changes the tag but not the visible text; it's still same semantics. However it's altering the markup; but the rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Changing tags could be considered altering content? The content is the text; tags are not content. The rule likely refers to textual content. It's ambiguous. Safer to keep the original tags as they appear? But we are to output clean semantic HTML; using and is not semantic. However the instruction says "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." It didn't say we must strip presentational tags. It said use for introductory paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It didn't forbid other tags. But to be safe, we can keep the original formatting tags like , , inside the
etc. However we also need to wrap paragraphs in
tags. The original already had
tags with styles; we will replace them with plain
(no style). That's okay because we are removing style attributes but preserving text. That's allowed because we are not adding or removing textual content; we are removing presentational attributes. The rule says no inline styles, so we must strip them. So we will remove style attributes and class attributes.
Thus we need to produce something like:
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
Aspires to be a Financial Advisor
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Skills
- Building Trust
- Consultative Selling
- Customer Feedback Management
- 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
Competencies
- Action Oriented
- Balances Stakeholders
- Builds Networks
- Collaborates
- Communicates Effectively
- Customer Focus
- Decision Quality
- Ensures Accountability
Education
NQF Level 4 - Grade 12, School leaving Certificate, National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)
Closing Date
29 September 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!
Check we preserved all text: Let's verify each piece.
Original text pieces:
1. "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" -> we output "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" (the HTML entity decoded). Is that preserving word-for-word? The original had HTML entity ' for apostrophe. We changed to actual apostrophe. That's a change in content (the entity vs character). The rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Changing ' to ' is altering the content (though visually same). To be safe, we should keep the entity as is? The output is HTML; we could keep the entity. Usually in HTML you can use the entity or the character. But to be strictly preserving, we should keep the original text exactly as given, including entities. However the instruction says "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". If we output the character, it's not the same sequence of characters. So we should keep the entity. However the output is HTML; the entity will be rendered as apostrophe anyway. So we should output "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" inside the . Similarly for other occurrences: "Africa's". Also the quote " for double quotes. We need to keep those.
Thus we must not decode HTML entities. We need to keep them as they appear.
Also there is a stray space before comma in "29 September 2026 , 23:59". Keep that.
Also there is double spaces in some places: "National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)" has two spaces before "(Required)". Keep that.
Also there is a trailing space after "23:59"? In original: "29 September 2026 , 23:59" then a space? Actually there is a space after the comma? It shows "29 September 2026 , 23:59". We'll keep exactly as appears: "29 September 2026 , 23:59". We'll not add extra spaces.
Now we need to handle the
in the role description paragraph. The original had "
". We must not use
tags per rule. So we need to replace that with something else? The rule says no
tags. We must preserve content word-for-word, but we cannot use
tags. However we can represent the line break as a new paragraph (
) maybe? The original had a line break within the same
tag. We could split into two
paragraphs to preserve the meaning without using
. That would be adding a
tag but not adding textual content. The rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Adding a
tag is not adding textual content; it's adding markup. Is that allowed? The rule about not adding content likely refers to textual content. Using
instead of
is a change in markup but not textual content. However the rule also says "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text". So we can treat line breaks as new paragraphs. So we should split the role description into two paragraphs: first sentence before
and second after.
Original: "
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
"
Thus we have two spans. We'll output:
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Note we need to keep the inner tags? We should strip them as they are presentational and not needed. The rule says no CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
. It doesn't forbid . But
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 📝
. Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. If text has no clear sections, just wrap paragraphs in
tags. Return ONLY the HTML. We need to parse the given job description text (which includes HTML tags with styles etc). We need to extract the content and produce clean HTML. Given the raw input includes many tags with inline styles etc. We need to ignore those and produce semantic HTML. We need to preserve original content word-for-word. That means we must keep the exact text content (including punctuation, spaces?) but we can reformat into HTML tags. We must not add or remove any content. So we need to output the same textual content, just wrapped in appropriate tags. We need to identify sections: The text includes: - "
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
" - "Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
" - Then empty paragraphs. - "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor
" - Then empty p. - "We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Skills
" - Then empty p. - Then empty p. - Then a line: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, 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 p. - Then "" - Then "Competencies
" - Then empty p. - Then empty p. - Then a series of lines each preceded by "" etc: "Action Oriented", then "", then "Balances Stakeholders", etc. Actually the pattern: after Competencies header, there is a series of competency names each preceded by an empty and then the competency text, then another empty . Let's extract them: After Competencies header we have: Action Oriented Balances Stakeholders Builds Networks Collaborates Communicates Effectively Customer Focus Decision Quality Ensures Accountability Then Education header:Education
NQF Level 4 - Grade 12, School leaving Certificate, National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required) Then Closing Date header:Closing Date
29 September 2026 , 23:59 Then italic bold note: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 final emphasis:The Old Mutual Story!
We need to produce HTML withfor intro paragraphs and general text. Use
for section headers. Use - for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). The content includes Skills list (comma-separated). Should we turn that into a
- list? The rule: Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to treat the Skills line as a list of skills, each item separated by commas. We need to split them into
- items. However we must preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. If we split the comma-separated string into separate
- items, we are not adding or removing content; we are just presenting same content but structured as list items. The content of each
- would be the skill phrase exactly as appears between commas. That should be okay because we are not altering the wording. However we need to ensure we don't add extra punctuation or spaces. The original line: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, 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". There's a trailing space? We'll keep each trimmed.
Similarly Competencies list: each line is a competency. Should we also treat as list? The rule says list items for duties, requirements, qualifications, skills. Competencies maybe not required to be list, but we could still use
- if we want. However the instruction: Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't forbid using for other things, but we should follow. For competencies we could just keep as paragraphs or maybe as
- as they are list-like. Safer to treat them as
- as they are items. But the rule says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". It doesn't say we cannot use for other items, but we should follow the pattern: if it's a list of items, we should use
- . The competencies are clearly a list. So we will use
- for competencies as well.
Education: It's a single line; we can keep as
.
Closing Date: single line.
The note about appointment: italic bold; we can keep as
with ... inside.
The final emphasis: we can keep as
with The Old Mutual Story!
(note double tags). We'll preserve.
Now we need to decide section headers: We have headings like Skills, Competencies, Education, Closing Date. Also there is an initial title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" maybe treat as ? It's like a tagline. Could be considered as introductory paragraph. The rule: Use for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we should use for those specific section headers. For other headings like "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor" maybe it's a subheading? Not in list; we could treat as
or maybe
? The rule says use for section headers (e.g. ...). It doesn't forbid using for other headings, but we should follow the pattern: If it's a section header, use . The "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor" seems like a job title? Actually the job title is likely "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor"? That seems odd. Could be a mis-formatting. But we should preserve content. We'll treat it as a
maybe with ? The original had Aspires to be a Financial Advisor. So it's underlined bold. We'll preserve the text but we cannot use or because we cannot add inline styles? Actually we can keep and as they are HTML tags; the rule says no CSS classes, no inline styles, no s, no
tags. It doesn't forbid other tags like , , . So we can keep them. However we need to output clean semantic HTML; using and is presentational but allowed? The rule didn't forbid them. It only forbids CSS classes, inline styles, ,
. So we can keep , , . However we might want to replace with semantic tags like and but that would be altering content? Changing to changes the tag but not the visible text; it's still same semantics. However it's altering the markup; but the rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Changing tags could be considered altering content? The content is the text; tags are not content. The rule likely refers to textual content. It's ambiguous. Safer to keep the original tags as they appear? But we are to output clean semantic HTML; using and is not semantic. However the instruction says "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." It didn't say we must strip presentational tags. It said use for introductory paragraphs and general text,
for section headers, - for list items. It didn't forbid other tags. But to be safe, we can keep the original formatting tags like , , inside the
etc. However we also need to wrap paragraphs in
tags. The original already had
tags with styles; we will replace them with plain
(no style). That's okay because we are removing style attributes but preserving text. That's allowed because we are not adding or removing textual content; we are removing presentational attributes. The rule says no inline styles, so we must strip them. So we will remove style attributes and class attributes.
Thus we need to produce something like:
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
Aspires to be a Financial Advisor
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Skills
- Building Trust
- Consultative Selling
- Customer Feedback Management
- 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
Competencies
- Action Oriented
- Balances Stakeholders
- Builds Networks
- Collaborates
- Communicates Effectively
- Customer Focus
- Decision Quality
- Ensures Accountability
Education
NQF Level 4 - Grade 12, School leaving Certificate, National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)
Closing Date
29 September 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!
Check we preserved all text: Let's verify each piece.
Original text pieces:
1. "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" -> we output "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" (the HTML entity decoded). Is that preserving word-for-word? The original had HTML entity ' for apostrophe. We changed to actual apostrophe. That's a change in content (the entity vs character). The rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Changing ' to ' is altering the content (though visually same). To be safe, we should keep the entity as is? The output is HTML; we could keep the entity. Usually in HTML you can use the entity or the character. But to be strictly preserving, we should keep the original text exactly as given, including entities. However the instruction says "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". If we output the character, it's not the same sequence of characters. So we should keep the entity. However the output is HTML; the entity will be rendered as apostrophe anyway. So we should output "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" inside the . Similarly for other occurrences: "Africa's". Also the quote " for double quotes. We need to keep those.
Thus we must not decode HTML entities. We need to keep them as they appear.
Also there is a stray space before comma in "29 September 2026 , 23:59". Keep that.
Also there is double spaces in some places: "National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)" has two spaces before "(Required)". Keep that.
Also there is a trailing space after "23:59"? In original: "29 September 2026 , 23:59" then a space? Actually there is a space after the comma? It shows "29 September 2026 , 23:59". We'll keep exactly as appears: "29 September 2026 , 23:59". We'll not add extra spaces.
Now we need to handle the
in the role description paragraph. The original had "
". We must not use
tags per rule. So we need to replace that with something else? The rule says no
tags. We must preserve content word-for-word, but we cannot use
tags. However we can represent the line break as a new paragraph (
) maybe? The original had a line break within the same
tag. We could split into two
paragraphs to preserve the meaning without using
. That would be adding a
tag but not adding textual content. The rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Adding a
tag is not adding textual content; it's adding markup. Is that allowed? The rule about not adding content likely refers to textual content. Using
instead of
is a change in markup but not textual content. However the rule also says "Use
for introductory paragraphs and general text". So we can treat line breaks as new paragraphs. So we should split the role description into two paragraphs: first sentence before
and second after.
Original: "
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
"
Thus we have two spans. We'll output:
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Note we need to keep the inner tags? We should strip them as they are presentational and not needed. The rule says no CSS classes, no inline styles, no , no
. It doesn't forbid . But
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 📝
- list? The rule: Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). So we need to treat the Skills line as a list of skills, each item separated by commas. We need to split them into
- items. However we must preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. If we split the comma-separated string into separate
- items, we are not adding or removing content; we are just presenting same content but structured as list items. The content of each
- would be the skill phrase exactly as appears between commas. That should be okay because we are not altering the wording. However we need to ensure we don't add extra punctuation or spaces. The original line: "Building Trust, Consultative Selling, Customer Feedback Management, 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". There's a trailing space? We'll keep each trimmed.
Similarly Competencies list: each line is a competency. Should we also treat as list? The rule says list items for duties, requirements, qualifications, skills. Competencies maybe not required to be list, but we could still use
- if we want. However the instruction: Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't forbid using for other things, but we should follow. For competencies we could just keep as paragraphs or maybe as
- as they are list-like. Safer to treat them as
- as they are items. But the rule says "Use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". It doesn't say we cannot use for other items, but we should follow the pattern: if it's a list of items, we should use
- . The competencies are clearly a list. So we will use
- for competencies as well.
Education: It's a single line; we can keep as
. Closing Date: single line. The note about appointment: italic bold; we can keep as
with ... inside. The final emphasis: we can keep as
with The Old Mutual Story!
(note double tags). We'll preserve. Now we need to decide section headers: We have headings like Skills, Competencies, Education, Closing Date. Also there is an initial title "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" maybe treat as? It's like a tagline. Could be considered as introductory paragraph. The rule: Use
for section headers (e.g. Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements, Education, Experience, Skills, How to Apply, Key Duties, About the Role). So we should use
for those specific section headers. For other headings like "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor" maybe it's a subheading? Not in list; we could treat as
or maybe
? The rule says use
for section headers (e.g. ...). It doesn't forbid using
for other headings, but we should follow the pattern: If it's a section header, use
. The "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor" seems like a job title? Actually the job title is likely "Aspires to be a Financial Advisor"? That seems odd. Could be a mis-formatting. But we should preserve content. We'll treat it as a
maybe with ? The original had Aspires to be a Financial Advisor. So it's underlined bold. We'll preserve the text but we cannot use or because we cannot add inline styles? Actually we can keep and as they are HTML tags; the rule says no CSS classes, no inline styles, no
s, no
tags. It doesn't forbid other tags like , , . So we can keep them. However we need to output clean semantic HTML; using and is presentational but allowed? The rule didn't forbid them. It only forbids CSS classes, inline styles,,
. So we can keep , , . However we might want to replace with semantic tags like and but that would be altering content? Changing to changes the tag but not the visible text; it's still same semantics. However it's altering the markup; but the rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Changing tags could be considered altering content? The content is the text; tags are not content. The rule likely refers to textual content. It's ambiguous. Safer to keep the original tags as they appear? But we are to output clean semantic HTML; using and is not semantic. However the instruction says "Return ONLY the HTML. No markdown fences, no explanation, no preamble." It didn't say we must strip presentational tags. It said usefor introductory paragraphs and general text,
for section headers,
- for list items. It didn't forbid other tags. But to be safe, we can keep the original formatting tags like , , inside the
etc. However we also need to wrap paragraphs in
tags. The original already had
tags with styles; we will replace them with plain
(no style). That's okay because we are removing style attributes but preserving text. That's allowed because we are not adding or removing textual content; we are removing presentational attributes. The rule says no inline styles, so we must strip them. So we will remove style attributes and class attributes. Thus we need to produce something like:
Let's Write Africa's Story Together!
Old Mutual is a firm believer in the African opportunity and our diverse talent reflects this.
Aspires to be a Financial Advisor
We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Skills
- Building Trust
- Consultative Selling
- Customer Feedback Management
- 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
Competencies
- Action Oriented
- Balances Stakeholders
- Builds Networks
- Collaborates
- Communicates Effectively
- Customer Focus
- Decision Quality
- Ensures Accountability
Education
NQF Level 4 - Grade 12, School leaving Certificate, National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)
Closing Date
29 September 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!
Check we preserved all text: Let's verify each piece. Original text pieces: 1. "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" -> we output "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" (the HTML entity decoded). Is that preserving word-for-word? The original had HTML entity ' for apostrophe. We changed to actual apostrophe. That's a change in content (the entity vs character). The rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Changing ' to ' is altering the content (though visually same). To be safe, we should keep the entity as is? The output is HTML; we could keep the entity. Usually in HTML you can use the entity or the character. But to be strictly preserving, we should keep the original text exactly as given, including entities. However the instruction says "Preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase". If we output the character, it's not the same sequence of characters. So we should keep the entity. However the output is HTML; the entity will be rendered as apostrophe anyway. So we should output "Let's Write Africa's Story Together!" inside the. Similarly for other occurrences: "Africa's". Also the quote " for double quotes. We need to keep those. Thus we must not decode HTML entities. We need to keep them as they appear. Also there is a stray space before comma in "29 September 2026 , 23:59". Keep that. Also there is double spaces in some places: "National or Occupational Certificate or equivalent (Required)" has two spaces before "(Required)". Keep that. Also there is a trailing space after "23:59"? In original: "29 September 2026 , 23:59" then a space? Actually there is a space after the comma? It shows "29 September 2026 , 23:59". We'll keep exactly as appears: "29 September 2026 , 23:59". We'll not add extra spaces. Now we need to handle the
in the role description paragraph. The original had "
". We must not use
tags per rule. So we need to replace that with something else? The rule says no
tags. We must preserve content word-for-word, but we cannot use
tags. However we can represent the line break as a new paragraph () maybe? The original had a line break within the same
tag. We could split into two
paragraphs to preserve the meaning without using
. That would be adding atag but not adding textual content. The rule says preserve ALL original content word-for-word — do not add, remove, summarise, or rephrase. Adding a
tag is not adding textual content; it's adding markup. Is that allowed? The rule about not adding content likely refers to textual content. Using
instead of
is a change in markup but not textual content. However the rule also says "Usefor introductory paragraphs and general text". So we can treat line breaks as new paragraphs. So we should split the role description into two paragraphs: first sentence before
and second after. Original: "We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
" Thus we have two spans. We'll output:
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.We are looking for self-motivated and dynamic individuals who have a passionate entrepreneurial spirit to join one of Africa's leading insurance companies.
The role at a glance is about championing our valued customers to achieve their lifetime goals by identifying their financial needs, providing sound financial advice, recommending and implementing "fit for purpose" financial plans and solutions.
Note we need to keep the inner tags? We should strip them as they are presentational and not needed. The rule says no CSS classes, no inline styles, no, no
. It doesn't forbid . But
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 📝 - for list items. It didn't forbid other tags. But to be safe, we can keep the original formatting tags like , , inside the
- for competencies as well.
Education: It's a single line; we can keep as
- . The competencies are clearly a list. So we will use
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills)". It doesn't say we cannot use for other items, but we should follow the pattern: if it's a list of items, we should use
- as they are items. But the rule says "Use
- as they are list-like. Safer to treat them as
- for list items (duties, requirements, qualifications, skills). It doesn't forbid using for other things, but we should follow. For competencies we could just keep as paragraphs or maybe as
- if we want. However the instruction: Use
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.