Can Daniel defend the 40% claim?
The recruiter asks Daniel to explain one result from his CV.
The question
Daniel and this workflow are fictional. His CV says handling time fell from 20 to 12 minutes per case in the same observation window. He designed the handoff and trained the team; engineers built the automation. The figures describe an observed comparison, not a causal experiment.
| Minutes per case | |
|---|---|
| Before | 20 |
| After, reported | 12 |
Use the same unit and observation window. Ask whether the measure covers the full task.
“Choose your next move and explain it briefly.”
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: What did he own?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Name design and training
The strong move. The claim must distinguish Daniel’s action from the engineering work.
Say he built the automation
Tempting, but it misses something. That gives Daniel credit for work the packet assigns to engineers.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I designed the handoff and trained the team. Engineers built the automation.”
Why it works: The claim must distinguish Daniel’s action from the engineering work.
Step 2: What does the measure show?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Explain the baseline and the observed change
The strong move. The starting measure is the denominator, and the evidence does not establish causation.
Divide 8 by 12 and claim a 66.7% reduction
Tempting, but it misses something. A reduction uses the before value as its denominator.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The reported fall is 8 minutes on a 20-minute baseline: 40%. It is an observed comparison.”
Why it works: The starting measure is the denominator, and the evidence does not establish causation.
Step 3: Does 40% still hold?
The recruiter shares the measurement note: the reported after figure omitted 4 minutes of mandatory review on every case. The before figure already included the full task.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Correct the result to 20%
The strong move. Both periods must include the same work before they can be compared.
Keep 40% because the automation itself still takes 12 minutes
Tempting, but it misses something. That compares a partial task with the full baseline.
See how a strong candidate says it
“No. The full after time is 12 + 4 = 16 minutes. The comparable fall is 4 / 20 = 20%. I need to correct the claim.”
Why it works: Both periods must include the same work before they can be compared.
Step 4: What should the follow-up say?
Before the manager stage, the recruiter asks Daniel to send a short written summary of the result.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Correct both the follow-up and CV
The strong move. The explanation and the written record need to agree.
Change the email but leave the CV at 40%
Tempting, but it misses something. That leaves two conflicting claims for the next interviewer.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’ll send the corrected 16-minute total and 20% reduction, explain my contribution, and update the CV.”
Why it works: The explanation and the written record need to agree.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Correct the claim before continuing.
- Because
- The full-task comparison supports 20%, with design and training owned by Daniel.
- What would change it
- A verified like-for-like measure could support another result.
Common traps
- Subtracting four minutes is not subtracting four percentage points.
- An observed improvement does not prove a single cause.
Check your answer
- I named Daniel’s contribution.
- I used the before value as the denominator.
- I included mandatory review.
- I corrected the written record.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026