[levlandau]

Less an explicit set of questions but more recursively/iteratively asking why/what/when/how at increasingly deeper levels of the problem they're talking about. It requires the interviewer to be at least familiar with the general domain but you don't have to be an expert. It's borrowed from how Elon Musk says he does assessments. People who know their stuff remember everything about every part of something they worked on. They know why they did /didn't do something all the way down to the most trivial level of detail and they have intelligent thoughts about how they would improve and what tradeoffs they made. Most people fail after one or two levels of this "interrogation".

[bcassedy]

I like this style of interviewing as well. What throws me still is when I'm talking to a candidate with only large corp, individual contributor engineering experience. Their answer for why is almost always some variant on "that was the spec".

What do you do with candidates like this besides weed them out at the resume review stage?