Product design question

Create an MVP for flying cars. Optimize the workflow for Cruise engineers.

Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.

What this question tests

Scoping an MVP for a futuristic, high-risk product and optimizing an internal workflow, a mix of product design and ops thinking.

Clarify scope: is this a consumer flying car product or, as the prompt hints, an internal engineering workflow tool at Cruise for flying car R&D.
Identify the user: Cruise engineers who need to test and iterate on autonomous flight systems safely and quickly.
Name the pain point: physical flight testing is slow, expensive, and risky, which likely bottlenecks iteration speed.
Propose an MVP: a simulation and telemetry platform that lets engineers validate flight software changes virtually before physical test flights.
Prioritize simulation fidelity and fast iteration loops first, since that is the highest leverage bottleneck for engineering velocity.
Define success as reduction in physical test flights needed per software iteration and time from code change to validated result.

Reframes the ambiguous prompt sensibly as an internal tools MVP for engineers, and says this is the assumption being made, rather than guessing blindly.
Targets the real bottleneck, expensive physical test cycles, instead of pitching consumer-facing flying car features.
Proposes a measurable workflow metric, iteration cycle time, that ties directly to engineering productivity.

Jumping straight into consumer flying car features without addressing the stated engineer workflow angle.
Ignoring safety and regulatory testing requirements that would gate any real flight product.

How would you validate that simulation results are trustworthy enough to reduce physical testing?
What would the riskiest assumption in this MVP be?