Reading the Interview Room
You are presenting findings to a disciplinary panel about a cashier, Priya, accused of under-ringing transactions for friends. Your evidence: 14 transactions over six weeks where items were scanned then voided, all occurring on Priya's register during her shifts, totaling about $340 in lost revenue. The panel chair asks whether the case is 'solid.' You know that: two other cashiers used that register during the period; the void function requires a supervisor override, and the supervisor on duty says she 'doesn't remember' approving voids; Priya has no prior discipline and a strong performance record; and your analysis did not compare void rates against other cashiers or registers.
1. How should you present the strength and limits of the evidence to the panel, and what is your honest assessment?
Read the worked answer
Present it as a pattern warranting further inquiry, not a proven case, and say so plainly.
Strengths to state:
- A specific, quantified pattern (14 voids, ~$340) tied to Priya's shifts.
- The void function leaves an audit trail, which is good evidence if properly attributed.
Limits to disclose proactively:
- Attribution gap: two other cashiers used the register, so register-level data does not prove Priya performed the voids. You need void-level user IDs and timestamps.
- Override gap: voids require supervisor approval; the supervisor's non-recollection is ambiguous, not exculpatory or inculpatory.
- No baseline: without comparing void rates across cashiers and registers, you cannot say this pattern is anomalous rather than normal error.
- Character evidence: clean record is context, not proof either way.
Honest assessment: the case is not solid enough to substantiate. Recommend pulling void-level attribution and a comparative baseline before disposition. Presenting an overstated case to a panel invites a wrongful-discipline outcome and undermines future cases.
2. The panel chair pressures you to 'just give us your gut read.' How do you respond without undermining your credibility?
Read the worked answer
Give a calibrated read, not a verdict, and separate what you believe from what you can prove.
Approach:
- Acknowledge the question directly - dodging looks evasive.
- State the evidence-based conclusion: 'On the current record I cannot attribute the voids to Priya; the pattern is real but the link to her is not yet established.'
- Offer the most likely explanation while flagging uncertainty: the voids cluster on her shifts, which is suggestive, but could reflect shared-register practice or supervisor behavior.
- Name the two data points that would resolve it (void-level user attribution; comparative void rates).
- Decline to convert a hunch into a finding: 'My gut isn't evidence, and you'd be disciplining on it.'
Why this works: it respects the chair's need for a bottom line while protecting the integrity of the process. A gut read delivered as a finding is exactly how investigations get overturned on appeal.