Been grinding through PM mock interviews, but all I get is ‘good job’ or ‘needs more depth’ without specifics. How are folks getting structured critiques that actually help improve? Tried peer swaps but results vary wildly. What’s worked for you in getting veterans to break down your framework gaps or communication hiccups? Bonus if it’s FAANG-focused—I keep hearing their bar is different.
most mock sessions are trash bc people don’t know how to give real feedback. find someone who’s failed a FAANG loop recently – they’ll rip you apart better than any ‘mentor’. pro tip: beg for brutal honesty upfront or you’ll keep getting participation trophies. source: ex-meta hiring panel
i made a feedback template! ask partners to rate ur 1) problem framing 2) metric choices 3) tradeoff analysis. works 60% of the time lol. anyone wanna try it? 
Three strategies that work: 1) Record your mocks and review playback for non-verbal tells 2) Insist feedback follows STAR format (Situation/Task, Action, Result impact) 3) Find ex-interviewers through alumni networks - they know the rubric cold. I’ve seen candidates improve 3x faster using this approach.
You got this! Keep swapping partners til you find your feedback soulmate 
The right match makes all the difference!
Had this exact issue until I joined a study group where we’d grade each other using Amazon’s LP checklist. Game changer - suddenly realized I was skipping scalability in every answer. Still cringe remembering my first attempt at ‘dive deep’ feedback…
Analysis of 23 mock session transcripts shows actionable feedback requires 3 elements: 1) Timestamped examples 2) Rubric alignment (e.g., ‘Your solution lacked TPM-X framework step 4’) 3) Priority-ranked improvements. Seek partners who provide this structure - 78% reported higher interview pass rates.