Business Judgement

Caselets on harassment, moonlighting, diversity hiring, HR policy and office politics — the largest judgement cluster. These have no formula: the skill is weighing stakeholders, naming the trade-off explicitly, and choosing the option you'd defend publicly. In subjective answers, acknowledge the strongest argument *against* your choice.

Market access, institutional strategy, contingency planning, PERT/bottleneck analysis and operational safety. These caselets test whether you can sequence decisions under constraints — what's urgent vs important, what information you're missing. Practise stating your assumption before your answer.

Who to hire, who to promote, when to let someone go, and managing careers inside an organisation. Evaluators look for decisions that balance performance evidence against team impact — neither purely loyal nor purely ruthless. Name the principle you're optimising for.

Founding decisions, social enterprise trade-offs, and family-business dynamics — the caselets closest to the Fellowship's own mission. Expect questions where 'correct' means honest about incentives: what does each party actually want, and which option survives that honesty?

Pricing trade-offs, brand management and unit-economics decisions. Part judgement, part arithmetic — be ready to do the rough math (contribution per unit, breakeven) before judging. The best answers quantify first and then argue the intangibles the numbers miss.

Something has gone wrong publicly — a bad batch, a viral complaint, a safety incident. The tested skill is triage: contain harm first, communicate honestly, fix root cause third, and never optimise for 'making it look fine'. Practise writing what you'd do in the first 24 hours specifically.