What does the London brief miss about the Singapore launch?
London team calls the launch ready. The Singapore operating owner says a partner prerequisite is unfinished.
The question
Kestrel Workflows is a fictional US-based B2B software company. Use only this case packet.
| Local start | Local end | UTC offset | |
|---|---|---|---|
| London | 09:00 | 17:00 | 0 |
| Singapore | 09:00 | 18:00 | 8 |
These fixed offsets apply to this fictional day. They are not year-round London time assumptions.
The CEO can approve a full or limited launch. The local operating owner confirms the partner prerequisite. Send the brief before the shared working window.
“Choose your next move and explain the decision it supports.”
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: Get the missing evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check the local owner’s evidence
The strong move. A central green status is not local confirmation.
Treat silence as agreement
Tempting, but it misses something. The local owner has already raised a gap.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Ask the local operating owner what prerequisite is unfinished and what evidence establishes readiness.”
Why it works: A central green status is not local confirmation.
Step 2: Use the common working hour
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Schedule 15:00 London time
Tempting, but it misses something. That is outside the supplied Singapore working window.
Use 09:00–10:00 UTC
The strong move. Singapore’s local window is 01:00–10:00 UTC.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The shared window is 09:00–10:00 UTC, or 17:00–18:00 in Singapore. Bring the brief and decision owner together in that window.”
Why it works: Singapore’s local window is 01:00–10:00 UTC.
Step 3: Update at 09:45 UTC: the partner confirms a delay and the local owner proposes a limited launch
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Seek a bounded CEO decision
The strong move. A narrower option needs an explicit decision before either team treats it as agreed.
Call the full launch ready
Tempting, but it misses something. The written delay contradicts full readiness.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Put the evidenced limited scope and its consequences to the CEO. There are 15 minutes left in the shared window.”
Why it works: A narrower option needs an explicit decision before either team treats it as agreed.
Step 4: Close the loop with both teams
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Leave each team with its own interpretation
Tempting, but it misses something. That recreates the original alignment gap.
Confirm scope and follow-through to both teams
The strong move. The decision must reach the people who will execute it.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Record the approved scope, owner and next update. If no supported scope is approved, pause the launch and say so.”
Why it works: The decision must reach the people who will execute it.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Approve only an evidenced scope through the CEO, or explicitly pause.
- Because
- The local prerequisite is incomplete and the common work window is short.
- What would change it
- Confirmed completion of the prerequisite could support full launch approval.
Common traps
- A polished update does not replace an agreed decision and owner.
Check your answer
- I asked for local evidence.
- I used the supplied time offsets.
- I respected the named decision rights.
- I closed the loop with both teams.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026