## Question Tell me about a time you received ambiguous or incomplete requirements for an engineering task. Explain how you recognized the ambiguity, decided which questions mattered, aligned the relevant people, and moved the work forward without quietly inventing product behavior. Your answer should include one concrete decision that was unclear, at least two plausible interpretations, the consequence of choosing the wrong one, and the evidence used to confirm the final direction. ### Constraints & Assumptions - Choose an example where the ambiguity could materially change behavior, architecture, scope, risk, or delivery—not merely a wording correction. - Separate facts known at the start from assumptions and later decisions. - Show forward progress while clarification was underway, such as reversible investigation, interface sketches, or tests around already agreed behavior. - Explain who had decision authority and how the decision was recorded. - Do not claim that every ambiguity disappeared; identify any residual uncertainty and how it was contained. ### Clarifying Questions to Ask - Should the example emphasize product ambiguity, a technical contract, or cross-team ownership? - Is an example acceptable if the correct outcome was to reduce or delay scope? - How much implementation detail would be useful after I explain the alignment process? ```hint Name the fork in the road State the two interpretations and their different consequences. “The requirement was unclear” is hard to evaluate until the interviewer can see the decision that could have gone either way. ``` ```hint Make progress on reversible work While waiting for a decision, investigate existing behavior, identify affected interfaces, and prepare tests or a small prototype that does not commit the product to one interpretation. ``` ### What a Strong Answer Covers - A specific requirement and the signals that exposed its ambiguity, such as conflicting examples, missing edge cases, or disagreement between stakeholders. - The competing interpretations and the user, system, compliance, or schedule consequences of each. - Focused questions sent to the people with the right context and authority, supported by a decision table, example, or prototype when words alone were insufficient. - Work that safely continued before resolution and work intentionally deferred because it would have embedded an unapproved choice. - A recorded decision with acceptance cases that engineering and stakeholders could inspect. - Validation after implementation and a candid account of any trade-off or uncertainty that remained. - Reflection on how the candidate made later requirements less ambiguous. ### Follow-up Questions 1. What would you have done if the decision owner remained unavailable? 2. Did any stakeholder disagree with the selected interpretation, and how did you handle that disagreement? 3. Which work could proceed safely before the requirement was resolved? 4. How did you prevent the same ambiguity from reappearing during testing or rollout? 5. What would have happened if you had implemented your initial assumption without asking?