# Stand by a Disputed Technical Judgment ### Prompt Describe a situation in which others believed your technical judgment was wrong, but you continued to advocate for it. What evidence supported your view, how did you challenge your own assumptions, how did you communicate dissent, and how was the decision resolved? **Candidate hint:** Persistence should be proportional to evidence and impact. Explain what would have caused you to stop advocating. ### Constraints & Assumptions - Choose a decision with meaningful consequences and legitimate opposing arguments. - State who owned the final decision. - Show respect for the people who disagreed. - Explain how you behaved after the decision, whether or not your position won. ### Clarifying Questions to Ask - Would you like an example involving reliability, architecture, security, or delivery scope? - Should I focus on influencing the decision or on handling the outcome? ### What a Strong Answer Covers - A clear technical claim and the risks on both sides - Evidence, falsifiable assumptions, and active search for disconfirming information - Calm escalation through the appropriate decision process - Commitment after resolution and protection against the identified risk - Outcome, calibration, and a lesson about when persistence is warranted ### Follow-up Questions 1. At what point would persistence have become counterproductive? 2. How did you avoid confirmation bias while collecting evidence? 3. What did you do after the final decision went against you? 4. How would you handle the same dispute if the risk involved security or data loss?