MediumProductCase study10 min to answer

A CRM has duplicates and inconsistent fields across systems. How do you repair it?

1Give yourself 10 minutes

2Answer out loud, not in your head

3Then compare with the answer below

Stuck? Show a way to structure it+

01Clarify the objective, user, constraints, and acceptable failure modes.
02Structure the response around source of truth, matching, normalization, prevention.
03Compare credible alternatives and state the decision criteria.
04Finish with validation, monitoring, and what would change the decision.

Reference answer

strong answer

I would first define the outcome and acceptable error boundary. I would explicitly cover source of truth, matching, normalization, prevention. I would select an approach only after comparing quality, latency, cost, safety, and operational complexity, then validate it with representative cases and production monitoring.

source of truth
matching
normalization
prevention

Must be adapted to the interviewer’s scenario
Would benefit from concrete numbers and personal examples

alternative answer

A second valid approach is to begin with the highest-risk assumption and test it cheaply. I would explicitly cover source of truth, matching, normalization, prevention. I would select an approach only after comparing quality, latency, cost, safety, and operational complexity, then validate it with representative cases and production monitoring.

source of truth
matching
normalization
prevention

Must be adapted to the interviewer’s scenario
Would benefit from concrete numbers and personal examples

Grade yourself

source of truth

weight 30%

StrongExplains source of truth concretely and ties it to a decision or measurable outcome.

WeakMentions source of truth without implications, trade-offs, or evidence.

matching

weight 25%

StrongExplains matching concretely and ties it to a decision or measurable outcome.

WeakMentions matching without implications, trade-offs, or evidence.

normalization

weight 25%

StrongExplains normalization concretely and ties it to a decision or measurable outcome.

WeakMentions normalization without implications, trade-offs, or evidence.

prevention

weight 20%

StrongExplains prevention concretely and ties it to a decision or measurable outcome.

WeakMentions prevention without implications, trade-offs, or evidence.

Then expect these follow-ups

What assumption is most fragile?
Tests: depth
What alternative did you reject and why?
Tests: adaptability
How would you validate this in production?
Tests: adaptability

Hiring now

Get the interview, not just the prep

landed applies to roles like these for you, on each company’s own site, with answers written for the role.

Get 5x interviews10 free auto-applies. No card.

Or practice this question first