Struggling with ambiguous product sense questions that feel like Rorschach tests. I’ve tried memorizing frameworks but get feedback that my answers feel robotic. Heard some senior PMs use a ‘problem/solution narrative’ approach rather than rigid structures. Anyone have concrete examples of balancing structure with originality in real interviews? How do you show depth without defaulting to CIRCLES/CIRCLES++ jargon?
newsflash: every FAANG panel has heard the same 5 frameworks 1000x. your job isn’t to be original, it’s to not make them yawn. my move? start with their dumb CIRCLES template then pivot to how you’d actually handle the mess IRL. fake it till they think you’re not faking it.
wait does circles framework work for startup interviews too? i practiced w/ friends but they say i sound like a help article pls help lol
Here’s what worked for my mentees: Use frameworks as scaffolding, not scripts. Start with 60 seconds of standard structure to demonstrate clarity, then transition into “What I’ve seen actually work” stories. Example: After sizing the market via framework, discuss how you compromised metrics for speed when shipping Feature X at your last role.
You’ve got this! Blend structure with your unique perspective - interviewers want YOUR thinking, not perfect boxes 
Totally feel you. I bombed my first Google PM round by over-structuring. Now I do this thing where I literally say ‘The framework suggests X, but honestly when we faced this at [Startup], we did Y because…’ Shows you know the theory but can adapt. Got me 3 offers last season!
Analysis of 127 successful PM candidates shows 82% used hybrid approaches: Framework for initial structure (avg 1.2mins), then transitioned to situational analysis. Key differentiator was linking decisions to specific business metrics - e.g., ‘Chose prioritization method based on CAC impact observed in A/B test 743’.