Tell me about a project that did not succeed. Why did it fail, which causes were direct and which more fundamental, and how much of it related to your own judgment?

Question-specific analysis · reviewed

This question has an edited analysis. Use it as a prompt for evidence, not as an automatic score.

Objective problem to resolve or clarify

Separate direct events, systemic causes, and the person's influence in a failed project, and identify which conclusions are evidenced or still uncertain.

What it examines

See your ability to summarize, in particular whether you separate direct causes from fundamental ones without blaming everything outside or taking everything on yourself.

Signals worth noticing

Separates direct causes from more fundamental ones, with the basis for each
Points to the part that relates to your own judgment, rather than putting it all outside
Says where the signs of failure were and whether they could have been seen earlier
Says which conclusions are fact and which are still conjecture

Context worth asking for

What were the original goal, baseline, and success criteria?
When did the earliest variance signal appear, who knew, and who could act?
Which factors came from personal decisions, the team, the organization, or the market?
If someone disagrees with your account of the causes, how do you respond?
When did the first sign of failure appear, and what happened then?
What goal, baseline, constraints, and responsibility boundary applied?
What options were available, and what evidence or dependencies shaped the choice?
Who was affected, what changed, and over what time window?
How was the result verified, and what alternative explanation or downside was considered?

What else the answer may imply

Acknowledging both personal judgment and external constraints while separating facts from conjecture may indicate structured reflection. Alternative interpretations to check: A later uncontrollable event may have caused the failure. The candidate may know the final retrospective but not have owned the decisions at the time.

Comparisons to consider

Direct cause and root cause

Compare trigger events, process or structural conditions, and evidence supporting each layer along the timeline.

Controllable and uncontrollable

Compare actions available at the time with information visible only later; avoid hindsight bias.

Decision after context

Separate facts, causal claims, and hypotheses; prefer improvements with a clear owner and check point that reduce recurrence risk.

Examine the trade-offs

Benefits created

What later decision, mechanism, or risk detection changed because of the review?
Did similar work later detect variance earlier or reduce loss?

Costs and risks

Which ordinary delivery capacity will corrective actions consume?
Could over-attributing personal fault hide organizational conditions or create unfair blame?

Assessment guide

Use these as evidence anchors for this capability, not as an automatic score or an overall judgment of a person. Calibrate expectations to the role, level, and scope. A score of 2 is the usual baseline; excellent evidence in one or two dimensions is meaningful, while exceptional evidence is rare.

1 · Not passing

Core concepts or basic facts are unclear; the reasoning or account of events cannot be followed. For experience questions, the person cannot distinguish their own actions and responsibility. Confirmed deliberate fabrication is not passing; inconsistency or missing detail alone is a reason to verify, not proof of dishonesty.

Blames only external factors or only self, without explaining facts, causes, and actions.

2 · Passing

Explains the basic concepts and approach clearly and gives credible evidence of having done the work or being able to reason through it.

Explains the failed goal, a main cause, and one responsibility they owned.

3 · Excellent

Gives a structured account, reflects clearly on what worked and what did not, weighs benefits against costs or risks, and offers an insight or practice above the ordinary expectation for the role and level.

Separates direct and systemic causes, facts and conjecture, and proposes an actionable counterfactual improvement.

4 · Exceptional

Shows an outcome or practice at an exceptional, field-leading level for the relevant scope. The impact is measurable, independently supportable, and credibly attributable to the person’s decisions and work.

Drives system improvements across periods and verifies effects through recurrence, loss, or recovery evidence.

Evidence that could make a contribution visible

Timeline, original decision records, early signals, improvement owners, and later observation of similar projects.

Question context and related views

RoleGeneral software engineering · Frontend · Backend · Mobile · AI engineering

Responsibility scopeIndividual work · A project or team

Career trackIndividual contributor · Team manager · Senior manager

Select questions for the responsibility you actually hold or seek. These labels are not universal stage requirements. Stage expectations

Same question, different stage expectations

The question stays the same. Choose a target to compare responsibility, reasoning, and evidence. This changes the reading framework, not the question’s difficulty or your score.

Loading stage model…

Target roleTarget responsibility

These are rule-based reading prompts, not separately reviewed stage-specific answers or a verdict that this question applies to every stage. Use your actual role and authority.

View the full role and stage model →

Compare expectations across stages

This table compares responsibility lenses, not mandatory question coverage or a ranking of people.

Stage	Responsibility	Result evidence

Want deeper feedback? Generate a prompt with this question’s evidence framework, then choose an AI tool yourself.

AI analysis prompt

# Interview Compass response analysis
Analyze the candidate response using only evidence provided. Do not invent facts.

## Question and review status
Question: Tell me about a project that did not succeed. Why did it fail, which causes were direct and which more fundamental, and how much of it related to your own judgment?
Analysis review status: Question-specific analysis · reviewed. This question has an edited analysis. Use it as a prompt for evidence, not as an automatic score.
Objective problem: Separate direct events, systemic causes, and the person's influence in a failed project, and identify which conclusions are evidenced or still uncertain.
Assessment intent: See your ability to summarize, in particular whether you separate direct causes from fundamental ones without blaming everything outside or taking everything on yourself.
Possible inference (a hypothesis to verify): Acknowledging both personal judgment and external constraints while separating facts from conjecture may indicate structured reflection. Alternative interpretations to check: A later uncontrollable event may have caused the failure. The candidate may know the final retrospective but not have owned the decisions at the time.

## Evidence framework
Observable signals:
- Separates direct causes from more fundamental ones, with the basis for each
- Points to the part that relates to your own judgment, rather than putting it all outside
- Says where the signs of failure were and whether they could have been seen earlier
- Says which conclusions are fact and which are still conjecture
Context worth asking for:
- What were the original goal, baseline, and success criteria?
- When did the earliest variance signal appear, who knew, and who could act?
- Which factors came from personal decisions, the team, the organization, or the market?
- If someone disagrees with your account of the causes, how do you respond?
- When did the first sign of failure appear, and what happened then?
- What goal, baseline, constraints, and responsibility boundary applied?
- What options were available, and what evidence or dependencies shaped the choice?
- Who was affected, what changed, and over what time window?
- How was the result verified, and what alternative explanation or downside was considered?
Comparison dimensions:
- Direct cause and root cause: Compare trigger events, process or structural conditions, and evidence supporting each layer along the timeline.
- Controllable and uncontrollable: Compare actions available at the time with information visible only later; avoid hindsight bias.
Decision after context: Separate facts, causal claims, and hypotheses; prefer improvements with a clear owner and check point that reduce recurrence risk.
Benefits to examine:
- What later decision, mechanism, or risk detection changed because of the review?
- Did similar work later detect variance earlier or reduce loss?
Costs and risks to examine:
- Which ordinary delivery capacity will corrective actions consume?
- Could over-attributing personal fault hide organizational conditions or create unfair blame?

## 1–4 evidence anchors
- 1 · Not passing: Core concepts or basic facts are unclear; the reasoning or account of events cannot be followed. For experience questions, the person cannot distinguish their own actions and responsibility. Confirmed deliberate fabrication is not passing; inconsistency or missing detail alone is a reason to verify, not proof of dishonesty. Question-specific reference: Blames only external factors or only self, without explaining facts, causes, and actions.
- 2 · Passing: Explains the basic concepts and approach clearly and gives credible evidence of having done the work or being able to reason through it. Question-specific reference: Explains the failed goal, a main cause, and one responsibility they owned.
- 3 · Excellent: Gives a structured account, reflects clearly on what worked and what did not, weighs benefits against costs or risks, and offers an insight or practice above the ordinary expectation for the role and level. Question-specific reference: Separates direct and systemic causes, facts and conjecture, and proposes an actionable counterfactual improvement.
- 4 · Exceptional: Shows an outcome or practice at an exceptional, field-leading level for the relevant scope. The impact is measurable, independently supportable, and credibly attributable to the person’s decisions and work. Question-specific reference: Drives system improvements across periods and verifies effects through recurrence, loss, or recovery evidence.

## Analysis instructions
1. Separate explicit evidence, missing context, and hypotheses. Cite exact words or facts from the response.
2. List the most important follow-up questions first. If there is not enough evidence, state “insufficient evidence; do not score.”
3. Assess each relevant signal against the 1–4 anchors only when supported; explain evidence and uncertainty.
4. Discuss comparison choices, causal reasoning, trade-offs, and the candidate’s actual participation where relevant. Identify strengths, unsupported conclusions, and one concrete next practice.
5. Do not provide a sample answer, rewrite the response as a script, diagnose personality, infer dishonesty from inconsistency alone, combine scores into an overall score, or recommend hiring/rejection.

If the response is not provided, ask the candidate to paste their response first; do not analyze or score the question alone.
Do not write a sample answer.