A short job-search warm-up
Two-Minute Evidence Check
Four fictional situations. A first read, then one new fact.
Download four checks (.txt)
Situation 1 of 4
What does the posting actually ask for?
Supplied facts
- Fictional Support Assistant brief: update help articles once a week.
- Comfort using a spreadsheet is listed as a requirement.
- Training on the team's analytics tool is provided. No certificate is mentioned.
Which statement is supported?
An analytics certificate is required before applying.
Not supported by the supplied facts
The brief describes tool training, not a certificate requirement. Do not turn an unstated qualification into a stated one.
The brief explicitly asks for comfort using a spreadsheet.
Supported by the supplied facts
The second line says this directly. It does not establish whether any particular person meets the requirement.
Training means no previous experience of any kind is needed.
Not supported by the supplied facts
Training on one tool does not describe every requirement for the role. The spreadsheet requirement is still stated.
Second look: An optional qualification is clarified
A later note in this fictional brief says: an analytics certificate is optional. The spreadsheet requirement remains unchanged.
What can you now say about the certificate, and what should you avoid concluding?
Compare with a worked response
What changes
The certificate is explicitly optional in this brief; that is stronger evidence than its absence from the first excerpt. Comfort using a spreadsheet is still stated as a requirement.
What stays uncertain
The new note does not say that the spreadsheet requirement is the only requirement, or establish whether a particular person meets the full brief.
Another visit
On another visit, replace one unsupported statement with a question you could check against the full posting.
Situation 2 of 4
Who did what in the project?
Supplied facts
- Fictional study project: you wrote three test cases for a settings screen.
- One case exposed a label that did not match the saved setting. A teammate fixed the label.
- You repeated the three cases after the fix. No user or time-saving data was collected.
Which statement is supported?
I rebuilt the settings screen on my own.
Not supported by the supplied facts
Your recorded contribution was writing and repeating test cases. The teammate made the fix; the facts do not say who built the entire screen.
My work reduced support time by half.
Not supported by the supplied facts
No time-saving data was collected. A discovered mismatch is an observed result, not evidence of a measured business impact.
My test case exposed a label mismatch, and I repeated the cases after a teammate fixed it.
Supported by the supplied facts
This keeps your contribution, the teammate's action and the follow-up check separate. The experience is fictional and must not be presented as your own.
Second look: A follow-up check adds a result
A later note for this fictional project says all three test cases passed after the teammate's fix. No user or time-saving data was collected.
Which result could the project description now include without claiming a business impact?
Compare with a worked response
What changes
The description can now say: I repeated the three test cases after a teammate fixed the label, and all three passed. This adds an observed check result while preserving who did what.
What stays uncertain
Passing those three cases does not establish that the entire screen is defect-free, or show a reduction in support time. This remains fictional experience, not a claim to copy as your own.
Another visit
On another visit, explain the same contribution in two sentences without adding a number or taking credit for the fix.
Situation 3 of 4
What does a remote label leave unanswered?
Supplied facts
- Fictional role brief: remote work, with shared collaboration hours.
- The excerpt does not state the hours, time zone or permitted work locations.
- No other employer information is supplied for this exercise.
Which statement is supported?
The collaboration hours, time zone and work-location details still need clarification.
Supported by the supplied facts
Those details are absent from the excerpt. The word remote does not supply them, and this exercise does not determine anyone's eligibility.
The role can be done at any hour from any country.
Not supported by the supplied facts
The excerpt leaves locations unspecified and explicitly mentions shared hours. It cannot establish unlimited schedule or location flexibility.
Shared hours mean everyone works the same full-day schedule.
Not supported by the supplied facts
Some shared hours do not establish an identical full-day schedule. The extent of overlap is still unknown.
Second look: Part of the schedule becomes clear
A later note in this fictional brief specifies shared collaboration hours of 14:00-16:00 UTC on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It still gives no work-location details.
Which part of the first answer needs updating, and which detail still needs clarification?
Compare with a worked response
What changes
The shared collaboration window and its time zone are now stated. It would be inaccurate to keep describing those specific details as missing.
What stays uncertain
The rest of the schedule and the work-location details are still unspecified. A stated collaboration window does not establish a full-day schedule or permission to work from any location.
Another visit
On another visit, ask one neutral question about the missing work-location details without assuming what the answer will be.
Situation 4 of 4
What belongs in the requested output?
Supplied facts
- Fictional demo task: submit one screenshot and one paragraph describing what it shows.
- The demo can export a CSV. No automatic updates to downloaded files are described.
- No slide deck or additional file is requested.
Which statement is supported?
A slide deck and CSV are required deliverables.
Not supported by the supplied facts
A feature the demo supports is not automatically a requested output. The brief asks for a screenshot and a paragraph.
The requested output is one screenshot with one descriptive paragraph.
Supported by the supplied facts
This follows the stated format without adding deliverables. For a real task, use its actual instructions rather than this fictional brief.
Any downloaded CSV automatically reflects future edits.
Not supported by the supplied facts
Export support alone does not establish automatic synchronization. The facts do not describe that behavior.
Second look: The brief requests an additional file
A revised version of this fictional task explicitly adds one exported CSV file to the screenshot and descriptive paragraph. It says nothing about automatic updates.
What is now part of the requested output, and which earlier assumption remains unsupported?
Compare with a worked response
What changes
The revised brief now requests a CSV as well as the screenshot and paragraph. The new instruction, not the mere existence of an export feature, makes the CSV a deliverable.
What stays uncertain
There is still no evidence that the downloaded CSV updates automatically. A slide deck is still not requested.
Another visit
On another visit, name the feature-versus-deliverable distinction and one final check you would make against the brief.