2 min lesson
Execution drill: program in trouble
Tell someone how to act on this idea. "The execution deep-dive doesn't ask if you can draw a Gantt chart."
Step 1 of 3
The execution deep-dive doesn't ask if you can draw a Gantt chart. It hands you a fire: a migration is slipping and ML, Infra and Finance disagree on the path. They want to watch you re-baseline scope, triage risk, move people who don't report to you and force a decision, with an artifact at the end rather than just a story.
The scenario: you're migrating inference serving to a new GPU pool to cut cost. It's two weeks behind. ML wants to pause for a model change, Infra wants to push through and Finance wants the savings this quarter. Run the recovery.
Learn more
Full explanation
The recovery sequence
The recovery sequenceRe-baseline → triage → influence → escalate
Interactive diagram. Step through it with the Next and Previous controls below, or Tab to a region to read its detail.
Run a slipping program in this order. The forcing escalation is the gate: nothing leaves the room without a dated decision.
Learn more
Advanced table
Show the artifact, don't narrate it
Show the artifact, don't narrate itA re-scoped plan plus an updated risk register
- Risk
- New GPU pool fails latency SLA under load
- Impact × likelihood
- High × Med
- Owner
- Infra lead
- Mitigation / trigger
- Shadow-traffic test before cutover; roll back if p99 breaches SLA
- Risk
- ML model change collides with migration
- Impact × likelihood
- Med × High
- Owner
- ML lead
- Mitigation / trigger
- Decouple: migrate current model first, ship model change in the next window
- Risk
- Savings slip past quarter end
- Impact × likelihood
- High × Med
- Owner
- You, the TPM
- Mitigation / trigger
- Re-baselined date + Thursday go/no-go to protect the quarter
- Risk
- Dual-running both pools inflates cost
- Impact × likelihood
- Med × Med
- Owner
- Finance partner
- Mitigation / trigger
- Cap the overlap window; daily cost watch during cutover
| Risk | Impact × likelihood | Owner | Mitigation / trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| New GPU pool fails latency SLA under load | High × Med | Infra lead | Shadow-traffic test before cutover; roll back if p99 breaches SLA |
| ML model change collides with migration | Med × High | ML lead | Decouple: migrate current model first, ship model change in the next window |
| Savings slip past quarter end | High × Med | You, the TPM | Re-baselined date + Thursday go/no-go to protect the quarter |
| Dual-running both pools inflates cost | Med × Med | Finance partner | Cap the overlap window; daily cost watch during cutover |
This register, with owners, triggers and a forcing date, is the deliverable the round wants to see.
When the interviewer plays the disagreeing partner, resist arbitrating by opinion. Pull the conversation to the shared number, "both paths should be measured against $/request at the SLA; here's what each costs us," and let the data carry the call. Influence without authority is earned by being the most prepared person in the room with the cleanest framing, since you have no rank to pull.
Don't narrate a heroic all-nighter. The execution round rewards structured recovery over effort: a re-baselined plan, a triaged register, a forcing escalation and a metric. If your answer is mostly "I worked the weekend and got everyone aligned," you've shown stamina but not the program-management craft they're grading.
QML, Infra and Finance disagree on how to recover a slipping migration and none of them report to you. What's the most impactful move and why does it fit Cursor specifically?