Does the parallel result meet the target?
Check the result in the condition the team plans to use.
The question
A fictional validation team needs at least 98% correct outputs under its intended use condition. Each check is scored once against a known answer.
| Scored | Correct | |
|---|---|---|
| Isolated operation | 2000 | 1980 |
| Intended condition | Pending | Pending |
Only the isolated condition has a result in this packet.
“Can the team accept the result for its intended condition?”
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: What condition does this cover?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Confirm the intended condition before making the decision
The strong move. The condition determines which evidence can support acceptance.
Apply the isolated result to every condition
Tempting, but it misses something. Only one condition has been measured.
Ignore the isolated result until you know the intended condition
Tempting, but it misses something. The isolated result is still valid evidence for its own condition.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The result covers isolated operation. I’d ask what condition the intended use requires.”
Why it works: The acceptance rule applies to the intended condition. The opening packet records only the isolated one.
Step 2: Does the isolated result meet 98%?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Yes. It clears the target by 40 passes.
Tempting, but it misses something. The required count is 1,960. The observed count is 1,980.
No. The 20 failures put it below 98%.
Tempting, but it misses something. Twenty failures among 2,000 leave a 99% pass rate.
Yes. It clears the target by 20 passes.
The strong move. The observed 1,980 passes exceed the required 1,960.
See how a strong candidate says it
“1,980/2,000 = 99%. The 98% target needs 1,960 passes, so the isolated check clears it by 20.”
Why it works: Compare the counted passes with the target for the same number of checks.
Step 3: Does the intended condition pass?
The intended condition uses concurrent operations. A separate check uses the same known-answer task and scoring, with 1,920 correct of 2,000 under concurrent operation.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Accept using the isolated 99% result
Tempting, but it misses something. The isolated test does not cover concurrent operation.
Hold acceptance. The concurrent result is 96%.
The strong move. The intended condition misses the stated 98% target.
Average both results and call the shortfall small
Tempting, but it misses something. The target applies to the concurrent condition on its own.
See how a strong candidate says it
“1,920/2,000 = 96%. That is three percentage points below the isolated result and 40 passes short of the target. The concurrent result fails the check.”
Why it works: The concurrent check tests the condition the team needs. The isolated result cannot replace it.
Step 4: What would you hand off?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Report the concurrent shortfall and request a matched repeat
The strong move. This preserves both measurements and gives the owner a clear next check.
Attribute all extra failures to crosstalk
Tempting, but it misses something. The two counts do not identify the mechanism.
Replace the concurrent result with the isolated result
Tempting, but it misses something. That drops the evidence for the intended condition.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d report the 99% isolated result and the 96% concurrent result with their conditions. I’d ask the test owner for a matched repeat and its run records before naming a cause.”
Why it works: The observed change supports a decision on the stated target. It does not identify the source of the errors.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Hold acceptance for the intended concurrent condition.
- Because
- Its observed 96% result falls below the stated 98% target.
- What would change it
- Use a new matched result from the intended condition to reconsider the decision.
Common traps
- Treating an isolated result as concurrent evidence
- Naming a cause from two pass counts
Check your answer
- Which condition did each check use?
- What pass count meets the target?
- What can you say about the observed difference?
- What should the test owner check next?
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026