Six runbooks arrived. Did Alex meet the standard?
The six agreed runbooks arrived on time. Four passed the first review; two have no tested rollback.
The question
Northline Services and all people, records and outcomes in this case are fictional. You manage its internal-tools team. Use only the supplied work evidence.
| Submitted on time | Rollback tested | |
|---|---|---|
| Runbook 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Runbook 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Runbook 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Runbook 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Runbook 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Runbook 6 | 1 | 0 |
One means yes; zero means no. The written standard required a tested rollback.
- AlexI flagged missing test access on November 8.
- Your commitmentRestore access by November 9.
- Access logPermission was restored on November 11, two days after your promise.
“Choose your next management action and explain the evidence behind it.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Open with the work evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Describe both missed commitments
The strong move. This names the quality gap and the manager’s contribution.
Say Alex lacks commitment
Tempting, but it misses something. The record does not establish Alex’s motivation.
See how a strong candidate says it
“All six arrived on time, but runbooks 5 and 6 did not meet the rollback check. I also missed the access date I promised.”
Why it works: This names the quality gap and the manager’s contribution.
Step 2: Ask what caused each gap
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Trace the cause with Alex
The strong move. An access problem and a skill problem need different support.
Decide access explains everything
Tempting, but it misses something. The missing permission may explain some work, not every decision.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Which checks were blocked by access, and what could still be completed or raised while waiting?”
Why it works: An access problem and a skill problem need different support.
Step 3: Keep quality and repair the plan
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Repair support and keep the bar
The strong move. Support makes the standard achievable without quietly removing it.
Count submission as completion
Tempting, but it misses something. The agreed standard includes a usable rollback.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Restore the needed access, arrange one paired rollback review and agree owners and dates for the two missing checks.”
Why it works: Support makes the standard achievable without quietly removing it.
Step 4: Choose what to check next
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check work and support
The strong move. A good conversation needs a later check of the work.
Wait for the annual review
Tempting, but it misses something. The release needs a shorter feedback loop.
See how a strong candidate says it
“At the next checkpoint, inspect the rollback evidence and whether I delivered access and review support on time.”
Why it works: A good conversation needs a later check of the work.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Address the specific gap and the support you owe.
- Because
- Submission was 6/6; first-pass acceptance was 4/6. Those are different facts.
- What would change it
- Alex’s account and the access evidence may change the cause and support needed.
Common traps
- A 100% submission rate does not establish 100% acceptance.
Check your answer
- I separated submission from acceptance.
- I named my missed promise.
- I asked about causes.
- I agreed evidence for the next check.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026