What do you say when the panel rejects your forecast?
Keep a measured weekly result separate from a recurring forecast.
“And then the students practice answering those questions that are served up.” (opens the source)
The question
You are presenting a fictional logistics work sample in Mexico to regional operations and finance leaders. Give a 60-second opening on pilot expansion. Overtime costs MXN 250 per hour, and programme operating cost is MXN 6,000 per week for these same two depots. Count only overtime savings; no safety or service benefit is assumed.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Depot A (hours) | 100 | 70 |
| Depot B (hours) | 50 | 40 |
An AI draft annualizes the net two-depot run rate to MXN 208,000 using 52 identical weeks. There are no results from additional depots.
“Choose the exhibit, give the opening and defend the recommendation under questions.”
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: Choose a defensible exhibit
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Show the two-depot weekly net result and the repetition assumption.
The strong move. Gross savings, net savings and a conditional annual run rate are different claims.
Present MXN 10,000 as net weekly savings.
Tempting, but it misses something. It ignores the recurring MXN 6,000 programme operating cost.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The observed reduction is 40 overtime hours per week. At MXN 250 per hour that is MXN 10,000 gross, less MXN 6,000 programme cost: MXN 4,000 net per week. The MXN 208,000 annualized figure assumes 52 comparable weeks repeat.”
Why it works: Gross savings, net savings and a conditional annual run rate are different claims.
Step 2: Open with limits
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask for a comparable normal-week check before expansion.
The strong move. The opening gives a useful result without claiming unseen evidence.
Scale the two-depot average to every depot immediately.
Tempting, but it misses something. The packet gives neither representative results from other depots nor a scale cost basis.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The observed two-depot run rate is MXN 4,000 net per week. I recommend another normal-week check before expansion. The annualized figure assumes this pattern repeats; it is not evidence from 52 weeks or additional depots.”
Why it works: The opening gives a useful result without claiming unseen evidence.
Step 3: Answer the baseline challenge
The panel reveals that depot A’s before-week included 20 one-off weather overtime hours. The after-week had none. Use 80 hours as depot A’s normal comparable baseline. Depot B, the hourly rate and programme cost stay unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Remove the one-off baseline hours before annualizing.
The strong move. An exceptional baseline component cannot support a recurring savings forecast.
Keep depot A’s full 30-hour improvement.
Tempting, but it misses something. Twenty baseline hours were exceptional weather work that did not recur.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Depot A’s comparable baseline becomes 80 hours, so its reduction is 10, not 30. With depot B’s 10, the normal weekly saving is 20 hours: MXN 5,000 gross and minus MXN 1,000 after programme costs.”
Why it works: An exceptional baseline component cannot support a recurring savings forecast.
Step 4: Revise without inventing certainty
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Change the expansion ask and name the break-even threshold.
The strong move. Correct a failed repetition assumption without making a new unsupported causal claim.
Call the corrected minus MXN 1,000 a proven programme-caused loss.
Tempting, but it misses something. A corrected before/after planning comparison is not a causal evaluation.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I withdraw the recurring saving and expansion claim. I would obtain two more normal comparable weeks or redesign the pilot. The programme needs more than 24 saved hours per week for positive net savings at this cost. The corrected planning comparison does not prove the programme caused a loss.”
Why it works: Correct a failed repetition assumption without making a new unsupported causal claim.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Withdraw the recurring savings forecast before expansion.
- Because
- The normal baseline yields negative weekly net savings at the stated cost.
- What would change it
- Representative comparable weeks above 24 saved hours per week could support positive net savings.
Common traps
- Annualizing an exceptional week.
- Calling a before/after comparison a causal result.
Check your answer
- I showed net rather than gross savings.
- I named the forecast’s repetition assumption.
- I answered the new baseline evidence.
- I changed the ask and named the break-even condition.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026