1. What would justify adding a supplier if we were forbidden to cite database size or a successful signing?

Interview objective: Establish an observable contribution to recruitment work before discussing subscription expansion.

Put to: Tyler Heaps and Sarah Rudd; ask the club’s budget owner to challenge the proposed value definition.

Why it matters to buyers: In her published Posit discussion, Dror describes making data understandable through corresponding video. That is a useful distinction for procurement: better presentation and access can be valuable without constituting a new underlying observation. (opensource.posit.co)

A strong answer should cover:

• A precise task, such as assessing whether a shortlisted midfielder receives effectively under pressure—not a general promise of better recruitment.
• What the existing stack and current staff can already establish.
• Whether the addition supplies a new observation, a new interpretation, faster verification or extra assessment capacity.
• The evidence required to accept the finding and the staff time needed to verify it.
• A case where the right recommendation would be to improve use of the incumbent rather than buy anything.

Sharp follow-up: If the supplier disappeared tomorrow, which supported conclusion would disappear with it—and which would merely take longer to produce?

Request this artefact: A baseline-versus-addition evidence ledger, with one row per recruitment question and separate columns for novelty, usability and verification effort.

Proposed expert interview; not yet conducted. No expert quotation is attributed.