What does the 90-day request require?
You are interviewing for a civilian program role on a fictional training inventory service.
The question
The approved report provides 30 calendar days of item-level history. A requester asks for 90 days. The change authority approves any change to the requirement.
| Calendar days | |
|---|---|
| Approved item-level history | 30 |
| Requested reporting window | 90 |
The requester has not yet specified what information they need from the older period.
The team has three working days available after approval.
“Find out what the requester needs and recommend a testable change.”
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 do you clarify first?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask what the requester needs to decide
The strong move. The answer determines whether the older period needs detail, totals or another view.
Promise 90 days of item-level history
Tempting, but it misses something. The requester has not asked for that level of detail and the older data has not been checked.
Reject the request because the current report was approved
Tempting, but it misses something. The change authority can approve a proposal once the need and impact are clear.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would ask what decision needs the older history and what level of detail supports it. I would record the request and leave the 30-day requirement in place pending approval.”
Why it works: The requested window and the required detail are separate decisions.
Step 2: What would the change affect?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Trace the data, report, tests and owners
The strong move. This makes the consequences of changing the baseline visible.
Estimate the work from the change in calendar days
Tempting, but it misses something. More days of history do not translate directly to implementation time.
Ask the report designer to change the date filter
Tempting, but it misses something. The filter cannot create older data that the source might not hold.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would check which older records exist, the report and tests that depend on them, who owns each change and what would fit the delivery window.”
Why it works: The change authority needs an impact assessment before approving scope or timing.
Step 3: What change can you recommend?
The archive holds a daily volume total for each of days 31 to 90. It has no individual item records for those days. The requester needs total volume across the rolling 90 calendar days and still needs 30 days of detail.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep 30 days of detail and add a 90-day total
The strong move. The older archive has the daily totals needed to extend the volume figure.
Estimate item-level records for the older period
Tempting, but it misses something. A daily aggregate does not identify individual items. The estimate would add unsupported detail.
Replace the 30-day detail with a single total
Tempting, but it misses something. The requester still needs the existing item-level view.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Keep 30 days of item-level history and add a 90-day volume total. Sum the item records for days 1 to 30 and the daily totals for days 31 to 90. Each day counts once.”
Why it works: The option meets the stated reporting need with the evidence the archive can provide.
Step 4: What goes in the approved plan?
The requester confirms the scoped interpretation. The change authority approves it. Implementation takes one working day. Verification takes one working day and starts after implementation.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Plan two days and check the new total and existing detail
The strong move. The approved scope fits with one working day to spare.
Plan one day by running verification alongside implementation
Tempting, but it misses something. The estimate states that verification follows implementation.
Check only that the date filter displays 90 days
Tempting, but it misses something. A label cannot prove the total covers every day once or that the detail still works.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Implementation and verification take two working days, leaving one spare. I would test both date boundaries, verify that days do not overlap and rerun the existing 30-day detail check.”
Why it works: The schedule respects the sequence and the checks cover both the new feature and existing behavior.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Recommend a defined change and show how you will verify it.
- Because
- The reporting need, available history and approval define what the team can deliver.
- What would change it
- A need for older item-level records would require another data source and a new estimate.
Common traps
- Check the reason for the request.
- Keep approved behavior visible while the change is considered.
Check your answer
- I clarified the reporting need.
- I checked the older data.
- I defined a scoped option.
- I recorded approval and verification.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026