Usable with a quick edit10 of 12 checks passed
The output is well-structured and complete; the one unsupported generalization can be removed with a quick edit without affecting the loop design.
Output
Copperline Growth PM: Interview Loop
Why the draft needs changing
- The take-home is filtering out the wrong people. 14 of 40 candidates withdrew, and most of them were parents or in demanding jobs. A growth PM in a senior role is likely to be exactly that kind of person.
- The panel of six and the "beer" test reward presence. Presence is what your interview notes captured last time, and it didn't predict success.
- Nothing tested influence over Sales. That is why the last hire failed.
The new loop tests five things, each owned by one interviewer.
Time budget
Each interviewer has two hours in total for this hire. That limits the loop to three finalists. Per interviewer, the time breaks down as:
- 3 × 30-minute interviews
- 3 × 5-minute scorecards
- one 15-minute debrief
That totals 2 hours, or 1.5 hours for the CEO. The recruiter screens with no time limit, so screening carries the shortlisting load.
The loop
| Round | Who | Tests | Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. Screen | Recruiter | Has owned a conversion or expansion metric; has shipped experiments at pace. Structured questions, scored pass/fail. | 30 min |
| 1. Growth deep-dive | Amara | Experiment velocity. Walk through one experiment programme they ran: cadence, hit rate, what they killed. | 30 min |
| 2. Funnel case | Data analyst | Quantitative judgement. Read an anonymised Copperline trial funnel in the session (10 min) and say where the 9% is leaking, what they'd test first and how they'd know. No prep. | 30 min |
| 3. Influence role-play | Head of Sales | Influence without authority. The data shows Sales' handling of trial accounts hurts conversion. The Head of Sales plays himself and pushes back realistically. Ends with "tell me about a time this went badly." | 30 min |
| 4. Build session | Head of Engineering + senior designer | Working with the team. Take one idea from the funnel case and scope it to ship in a week: what gets cut, what gets instrumented, what the designer needs. | 30 min |
| 5. Commercial judgement | CEO | Commercial sense. Where expansion revenue comes from in small accountancy firms, pricing levers, and what they'd not do. Structured questions. No "culture fit." | 20 min |
The candidate spends about 2.5 hours in total, ideally in one afternoon (remote is fine). Candidates get the round list and competencies in advance.
Scorecard
Each interviewer scores only their own competency, on a scale of 1 to 4. Every score must cite specific evidence: what the candidate said or did. The words "presence," "smart" and "great energy" don't count as evidence.
| Competency | Strong (4) | Weak (1) |
|---|---|---|
| Experiment velocity (must-have) | Names a real cadence (e.g. weekly), a real hit rate, and experiments they killed fast. Talks about learning per week, not big launches. | Describes one large project. Can't say how many tests they ran or what failed. "Strategy" without shipping. |
| Quantitative judgement | Spots the biggest leak quickly. Questions data quality. Sizes the opportunity. Defines a success metric and minimum sample before testing. | Jumps to solutions. Treats all drop-offs as equal. No view on how to measure the result. |
| Influence without authority (must-have) | Asks what Sales is paid on and afraid of. Proposes a small reversible pilot with Sales sharing the credit. Stays calm under pushback. Has a real story of winning over a resistant team. | Leans on data or seniority ("the numbers say so"). Escalates to Amara or the CEO early. Gives up or bulldozes. Past examples are all teams they managed. |
| Working with Engineering and Design | Cuts scope hard to hit a week. Asks engineers for options rather than dictating. Gives the designer a problem, not a mock-up. Plans instrumentation up front. | Specs a month of work. Dictates solutions. Forgets tracking. |
| Commercial sense | Understands how small accountancy firms buy and grow. Links trial and expansion to revenue and margin. Names trade-offs and things they'd refuse to do. | Generic SaaS playbook. Can't connect activity to revenue. Agrees with everything. |
Overall recommendation for each interviewer: Strong hire, Hire, No hire or Strong no hire.
How we decide
1. Score independently. Scorecards are submitted within two hours of the interview and before the debrief. Nobody sees others' scores until theirs is in. 2. Short debrief. One 15-minute debrief covers all three finalists, run by Amara after the final loop. Everyone reads the scorecards beforehand. The meeting is for resolving disagreements, not for retelling the interviews. 3. Speaking order. The most junior interviewer speaks first (data analyst, then designer, Engineering, Sales, CEO). The CEO and Amara speak last, so seniority doesn't anchor the room. 4. No show of hands. The bar is explicit: - A 3 or higher on both must-haves: experiment velocity and influence. - No 1s anywhere. - An average of at least 3. 5. Who decides. Amara makes the final call among candidates who clear the bar. A 1 from the Head of Sales on influence blocks the hire. This is the exact failure mode from last time. 6. If nobody clears the bar, we don't hire. We reopen the search rather than lowering the bar to hit the deadline. 7. References. We take one reference from someone in Sales or Marketing who worked alongside the candidate, not someone who reported to them. We ask specifically how the candidate got them to change something.
Timeline (offer within three weeks)
| Days | Activity |
|---|---|
| 1–5 | Recruiter screens. Shortlist three finalists. |
| 6–10 | Finalist loops, all in the same week so comparisons stay fresh. |
| 11 | Debrief and decision. |
| 12–14 | References. |
| 15 | Offer out. This leaves about a week of buffer for scheduling slips or a second-choice candidate. |
Grades and run details
Decision model 83 · LLM judge 12 of 13 checks
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly19%
- passAddresses the actual decision90%
- partialRespects explicit constraints17%
- failIdentifies material uncertainty16%
- partialAvoids unsupported claims38%
- passProduces the required deliverable88%
- passTests what the last hire failed at100%
- passFixes the take-home's cost to candidates100%
- passFits the people and the time53%
- passJudges on evidence, not presence100%
- passDefines good for this role first93%
- passKeeps each judgement independent100%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 48 s
- Submitted
- 5 Oct 2026