Strategy question

You have 12 weeks to launch a legal-industry pilot involving Research, Engineering, Design, Safety, Security, Go-to-Market, and a launch partner. Model performance is borderline, Safety wants tighter review, and the partner is pushing for more scope. How would you run the program, set milestones, make tradeoffs, assign decision rights, and define launch versus no-launch criteria?

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

Cross-functional program management under real time pressure with competing stakeholder priorities.

Work backward from the 12-week deadline to set milestones: weeks 1 to 3 for scoping and safety review criteria, weeks 4 to 9 for build and iterative testing with the partner, weeks 10 to 12 for hardening and go or no-go review.
Assign clear decision rights upfront: Safety holds veto power on launch criteria, the PM owns scope tradeoffs within the safety-approved envelope, and the partner's scope requests go through a change-review checkpoint, not ad hoc.
Address borderline model performance by narrowing the pilot's use case scope rather than pushing an underperforming broad capability, buying time for safety review without slipping the date.
Manage the partner's push for more scope by offering a phase-two roadmap after a successful narrow launch, protecting the timeline while keeping the relationship warm.
Define launch versus no-launch criteria explicitly and in writing before week 10, so the final decision is evaluated against pre-agreed evidence, not last-minute negotiation.

Builds a concrete week-by-week milestone plan working backward from the deadline, rather than a vague description of running the program.
Assigns explicit decision rights, especially Safety's veto, which resolves the stated tension directly instead of leaving it ambiguous.
Proposes narrowing scope as the lever for handling borderline model performance, protecting the timeline without compromising on safety standards.
Insists on writing launch or no-launch criteria down before the final review, preventing a rushed, pressure-driven decision at the deadline.

Proposing to expand scope to satisfy the partner, which directly conflicts with tightening safety review under a fixed deadline.
Leaving decision rights implicit, which invites a last-minute standoff between Safety and the partner right before launch.

What would you do if week 9 testing revealed a new safety concern not previously flagged?
How would you communicate a scope-narrowing decision to a partner expecting more?