AI at work · fictional workplace scenes
One example becomes three votes
An interview debrief can mistake repeated evidence for independent support. In this fictional panel, Otto groups three positive comments about a candidate into a strong recommendation. Ollie follows the comments back to their notes. All three describe the same exercise, and two interviewers learned about it from Casey rather than observing it.
Why it looked good
Three matching comments look like three separate observations. Repetition makes one example feel broader than it is.
Q1 · What is this really for?
What separate abilities does this recommendation need evidence for, and which observations actually support them?
Q2 · Who decides, and did they?
Who owns the panel recommendation, and have they reviewed which comments share the same source?
The next move
Ollie groups the comments under their original observation and asks Casey which agreed criteria still need evidence before the panel decides.
Try another scene
This is a standalone fictional workplace scenario, not a scene from a published episode.
Print this trap with its matching two-question back (A4 or US Letter) →
← Browse all AI-at-work traps · Play a standalone workplace scene
Site last updated: