I think it's a weak positive signal for AI use. Including quantitative impacts has been a recommended practice for a long time. Humans struggle to do it though because they don't have the numbers. Maybe the frequency is increased slightly by everyone using LLMs for resume reviews and getting the same advice. If you rewrite your resume directly with the bullshit machine though.. you might invent some quantitative values you never knew before.

I've seen this a bit in resumes before LLMs. It seems much more likely to be an indicator of current "best practices" somewhere than LLMs. The number of significant digits on 55.3% is a bit concerning though, and having 14 percentages is also a bit weird, especially going back 10 years. I think you're probably the best guide here, and hopefully a phone screen or similar would smoke out the reality!

I've been seeing this for years, and most of the time they are either lies or, at best, half truths.