FIELD NOTE / INSTAGRAM
Stop scoring only the first patch.
The complete written thought and the evidence behind it. The video edition will follow its public release.
The written argument is here.
This approved Instagram edition is on the journal now. Its video player and original platform link will appear after each public release is verified.
Stop scoring only the first patch.
Video caption
Stop scoring only the first patch.
Technical fundamentals stay visible.
See whether the plan changes.
Agent use is allowed; the standard is higher.
#EricFieldNotes
Full written post / accessibility read
Show the candidate a clean agent-produced diff. The useful interview starts when it looks complete. Can they explain the system it touched, find the unasked business decision, choose an independent test and describe a handoff a teammate could act on? The interviewer supplies the artifact.
Score the spoken system model, a discriminating test proposal, a release decision and a concise handoff. Write strong-answer examples before seeing candidates. Ask one code-reading follow-up about data contracts or failure handling so polished process language cannot substitute for fundamentals. The interviewer supplies the case; the candidate does not implement it.
Show a fictional producer diff whose tests pass, then disclose a consumer that lags two weeks. Ask how old and new events coexist, what replay would demonstrate and who authorizes the compatibility window. A strong answer may pause release, propose dual-version handling and name a business owner. This is a few minutes of reasoning, not homework.
Give each candidate the same questions, artifact and time; let them refer to the agent output they will see at work. Score the judgments the role requires because typing speed no longer captures the whole job. Compare interviewer scores and candidate feedback before operational use. If a practical build is indispensable, make it small, scoped and paid.
#EricFieldNotes
Four-beat scene transcript
1. Stop scoring only the first patch.
Show the candidate a clean agent-produced diff. The useful interview starts when it looks complete. Can they explain the system it touched, find the unasked business decision, choose an independent test and describe a handoff a teammate could act on? The interviewer supplies the artifact.
Visual: The job continues after the agent says done.
2. Use four observable columns.
Score the spoken system model, a discriminating test proposal, a release decision and a concise handoff. Write strong-answer examples before seeing candidates. Ask one code-reading follow-up about data contracts or failure handling so polished process language cannot substitute for fundamentals. The interviewer supplies the case; the candidate does not implement it.
Visual: Technical fundamentals stay visible.
3. Add one fact late.
Show a fictional producer diff whose tests pass, then disclose a consumer that lags two weeks. Ask how old and new events coexist, what replay would demonstrate and who authorizes the compatibility window. A strong answer may pause release, propose dual-version handling and name a business owner. This is a few minutes of reasoning, not homework.
Visual: See whether the plan changes.
4. Test the work you will assign.
Give each candidate the same questions, artifact and time; let them refer to the agent output they will see at work. Score the judgments the role requires because typing speed no longer captures the whole job. Compare interviewer scores and candidate feedback before operational use. If a practical build is indispensable, make it small, scoped and paid.
Visual: Agent use is allowed; the standard is higher.
Research and claim limits
- U.S. OPM: Work Samples and Simulations (S151)
- U.S. OPM: Designing an Assessment Strategy (S156)
- U.S. OPM structured interviews (S203)
- U.S. OPM structured interview guide (S204)
The examples identified as illustrative or simulated are design probes, not reported incidents. Vendor specifications do not establish workload performance.