Do three green reports make a launch ready?
Product, Engineering and Legal each report green. No one owns the overall release decision.
The question
Kestrel Workflows is a fictional US-based B2B software company. Use only this case packet.
| Duration | Starts after | |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements | 2 | Start of day 0 |
| Engineering | 3 | Requirements finish |
| Legal review | 2 | Requirements finish |
| Release preparation | 1 | Engineering and Legal finish |
Durations are business days. Engineering and Legal run in parallel. A task ending at day 2 lets its successor start at day 2.
- ProductRequirements are on plan.
- EngineeringOur own work is green.
- LegalOur review is green.
“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: Find the missing agreement
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check the chain and decision owner
The strong move. Local status does not establish an end-to-end commitment.
Tell the CEO the launch is ready
Tempting, but it misses something. There is no agreed owner or combined readiness check.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Name an overall release decision owner and check the dependencies behind the local reports.”
Why it works: Local status does not establish an end-to-end commitment.
Step 2: Build the shared commitment
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Add all four durations in sequence
Tempting, but it misses something. Engineering and Legal are explicitly parallel.
Use the later predecessor finish
The strong move. Release preparation waits for both predecessor tasks.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Requirements finish at day 2. Engineering finishes at day 5, Legal at day 4, and release preparation finishes at day 6.”
Why it works: Release preparation waits for both predecessor tasks.
Step 3: Update: Engineering now needs 5 days after requirements
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Escalate the day-8 completion
The strong move. The changed dependency controls the end-to-end date.
Keep day 6 because Legal remains green
Tempting, but it misses something. Legal’s local status does not remove the engineering delay.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Engineering finishes at day 7, so release preparation finishes at day 8: two business days later.”
Why it works: The changed dependency controls the end-to-end date.
Step 4: Close the executive decision
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Promise overtime to recover the date
Tempting, but it misses something. The packet does not authorize overtime or show that it would recover the work.
Agree the revised date or checked scope
The strong move. A credible alternative needs its own dependency check.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Give the CEO the two-day change, its owner and the affected commitment. Offer day 8 or an explicitly checked smaller scope.”
Why it works: A credible alternative needs its own dependency check.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Agree day 8 or a checked smaller scope through the release decision owner.
- Because
- The engineering change moves the end-to-end completion by two business days.
- What would change it
- A proven scope reduction or changed dependency could restore an earlier date.
Common traps
- A polished update does not replace an agreed decision and owner.
Check your answer
- I checked the full dependency chain.
- I named the decision owner.
- I quantified the changed date.
- I did not invent recovery capacity.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026