The role, its neighbours and the interview · The interview

Behavioural — two answers about the slip

Rank two answers to "tell me about a deployment that slipped", find the defect the follow-up exposes in the better one, and rewrite it.

critiqueeasyExercise · 3 min · 64 of 64

On this page

Two candidates tell the same kind of story, and one of them sounds much better. The behavioural round in the typical loop is scored on the follow-up as much as on the story.

The situation

The behavioural interviewer asks: "Tell me about a deployment that slipped." Two candidates answer about similar pilots.

Answer A: "We had a tough one last year. The customer's data team was really slow getting us access, so we ended up about three weeks behind. We pulled together as a team, worked a couple of weekends, and got it live. The customer was happy in the end, and I learned a lot about managing stakeholders."

Answer B: "An 8-week claims pilot. The nightly export I needed by working day 5 arrived on day 14, in week 3, nine days late. I moved the shadow run from week 4 to week 5 and dropped the chat surface from scope. Handlers were using it from week 8, one week late, at 95.5% agreement on the 200-case set, and the customer renewed. I now ask for the export on the first day of kickoff."

The interviewer asks both the same follow-up: "When did the sponsor find out?" Candidate B says: "In the week-6 update, once I was sure of the new date."

The question

Decide which answer scores higher, find the defect that remains in the better one, and say what the candidate should have done instead.

A strong answer · Rubric · Where answers go wrong

Write your answer first, then open

A strong answer

B scores higher, and it is not close. A has no date, no number and no "I" that decided anything: "about three weeks", "a couple of weekends", "the customer was happy". It blames the customer's data team and recovers by overtime, so the interviewer learns that this candidate's plan for a slip is to work harder and hope.

B has the shape: the week, the size of the slip, two decisions, the outcome against the definition of done, and a change in practice. It scores well until the follow-up.

The defect is the disclosure. B knew the size of the slip on day 14, in week 3, and the risk from day 5, in week 1. The sponsor heard in week 6: at least three weeks in which he reported the old date upward. "Once I was sure" presents that gap as prudence, and it is the failure the follow-up was written to find.

The second defect follows from the first. Dropping the chat surface was a scope change to a document the sponsor signed, so it was his decision to make, offered with options, not B's to take alone.

Instead, the week-3 update carries it: "The export landed nine days late. The shadow run moves to week 5 and handlers seeing the tool is at risk by one week. Decision needed from you by Friday: hold week 7 by cutting the chat surface, or move it to week 8." A date at risk in week 3 is information; a date certain in week 6 is a surprise, as the champion who left in week 4 also shows.

Rubric

ranks B above A and names what A lacks: a date, a number, a first-person decision
treats A's blame on the customer and recovery by overtime as reasons it loses
finds the gap between knowing (day 5, day 14) and disclosing (week 6) as the defect in B
says the scope cut was the sponsor's decision, to be offered as an option rather than taken alone
rewrites the disclosure as a week-3 update with the size of the slip, two options and a date for the decision

Where answers go wrong

"B is excellent: numbers, ownership, a lesson learned." Loses because the follow-up exists to find the disclosure gap, and a candidate who misses it in someone else's answer will repeat it in their own.

"A is better because it shows teamwork and humility." Loses because "we pulled together" hides what the candidate did, and an interviewer cannot score a decision nobody in the story made.

"B's defect is the slip itself; a stronger engineer would have held week 7." Loses because the late export was outside B's control, and the round scores how a slip is handled, not whether one happened; the controllable thing was when the sponsor heard.