Correspondence and audit studies are widely regarded as a “gold standard” for capturing discrimination and bias. However, gatekeepers (e.g., employers) are the analytic unit even though stated implications often center on group-level inequalities. Using the binomial distribution, we show that such field experiments have the potential to uncover applicant-side inequalities and burdens beyond the gatekeeper biases standardly reported by demonstrating that unit-level probabilities do not accurately reflect real-world applicant chances of success. Specifically, applicants from groups facing lower callback rates must submit more applications to ensure an eventual callback, have fewer opportunities to choose from, and face higher uncertainty regarding how many applications to submit. These results reflect several sequential and cumulative stratification processes “real-world” applicants face that warrant attention in conventional reporting. Our approach can be straightforwardly applied and, we show, is particularly pertinent for employment relative to other institutional domains (e.g., education, religion). We discuss the methodological and theoretical relevance of our suggested extensions and the implications for the study of inequality, discrimination, and social closure.