1 min lesson
Run the 10-minute presentation
Explain the order in "Run the 10-minute presentation", then say how you would verify the result.
Step 1 of 2
Run the 10-minute presentationdo this first, uninterrupted
- 1Problem and hypothesis (90s). State the question you were answering and what you believed before any results. One sentence of stakes: why it mattered that the answer be true.
- 2Method, with rejected alternatives (3-4 min). Walk what you built. For each major fork, name the option you rejected and the reason. This is where ownership shows.
- 3Eval and result (3 min). Give the metric, the baseline, the effect size and the variance you ruled out. Numbers, not adjectives.
- 4The weakest part (60s). Close by naming the limitation you would attack next. Volunteering it is the strongest single move in the round.
Record the run on your phone. You are not checking for polish; you are checking whether a stranger could follow the argument and whether you ever hand-waved a number you should have known.
Learn more
Advanced table
Then field the adversarial questions, cold
Then field the adversarial questions, cold
- The question
- “How do you know it wasn't noise?”
- What a weak answer does
- Asserts the result and moves on.
- What a strong answer does
- Names baseline, seed count, spread and the ablation that isolated the effect.
- The question
- “What would you do differently?”
- What a weak answer does
- Says nothing real or stays defensive.
- What a strong answer does
- Gives a concrete change and the evidence that would justify it.
- The question
- “What's the weakest part of this?”
- What a weak answer does
- Claims there isn't one.
- What a strong answer does
- Volunteers a genuine limitation and how you'd test for it.
- The question
- “Why this method over X?”
- What a weak answer does
- Describes the method again.
- What a strong answer does
- Names the rejected alternative and the tradeoff that decided it.
| The question | What a weak answer does | What a strong answer does |
|---|---|---|
| “How do you know it wasn't noise?” | Asserts the result and moves on. | Names baseline, seed count, spread and the ablation that isolated the effect. |
| “What would you do differently?” | Says nothing real or stays defensive. | Gives a concrete change and the evidence that would justify it. |
| “What's the weakest part of this?” | Claims there isn't one. | Volunteers a genuine limitation and how you'd test for it. |
| “Why this method over X?” | Describes the method again. | Names the rejected alternative and the tradeoff that decided it. |
Practice each of these out loud until the answer is reflexive, not reconstructed on the spot.