Does the prototype fit the receiving system?
Explain which system limits a research prototype meets.
The question
A receiving team sets an energy and latency limit for a defined job. The research lab supplies a core-only measurement for that job. The interface cost is not in the lab report.
| System limit | Lab core only | |
|---|---|---|
| Energy per job (mJ) | 120 | 85 |
| Latency per job (ms) | 4 | 3.2 |
The complete system must meet both limits.
“Would you describe the prototype as ready for the receiving team’s system?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: State the remaining room
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Report the remaining energy and latency room.
The strong move. The difference between the cap and the core result is the available room for the other components.
Mark both limits as passed for the complete system.
Tempting, but it misses something. The measured result excludes the interface that the receiving team needs.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The core leaves 35 mJ and 0.8 ms for the rest of the system. I’d check what the receiving team needs to add.”
Why it works: The difference between the cap and the core result is the available room for the other components.
Step 2: Set the measurement boundary
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Add an interface figure from any available test.
Tempting, but it misses something. An interface measurement from another job may have a different workload and timing.
Ask for the interface result and its timing relationship to the core.
The strong move. The comparison needs compatible job definitions and a clear boundary around what each result includes.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d check which costs are outside the core measurement, whether timing overlaps and whether the interface was measured on the same job.”
Why it works: The comparison needs compatible job definitions and a clear boundary around what each result includes.
Step 3: Add the interface
On the same job, the receiving team measures 42 mJ and 0.5 ms of additional interface work. The interface runs in sequence with the core, with no timing overlap.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Call the complete system ready because latency still passes.
Tempting, but it misses something. The receiving team requires both limits. A latency pass cannot compensate for energy overage.
Report an energy failure and a latency pass.
The strong move. The interface adds to core energy. The timings add because the two stages run in sequence.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The total is 127 mJ and 3.7 ms per job. Energy is 7 mJ over its cap. Latency has 0.3 ms of room. The prototype misses the energy limit.”
Why it works: The interface adds to core energy. The timings add because the two stages run in sequence.
Step 4: Hand off the evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Transfer the measured evidence and flag the remaining qualification question.
The strong move. A handoff can give the next team enough evidence to plan a decision while keeping the failed limit visible.
Leave the failed energy check out of the handoff until the team asks.
Tempting, but it misses something. The receiving team could read a partial report as a pass on both criteria.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d give the receiving team the measured scope, both totals and the failed energy limit. That team owns the next qualification decision.”
Why it works: A handoff can give the next team enough evidence to plan a decision while keeping the failed limit visible.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Send the evidence with the failed energy limit.
- Because
- At 127 mJ and 3.7 ms per job, the full system meets only the latency limit.
- What would change it
- A comparable full-system result within both limits would support qualification review.
Common traps
- Using a core measurement for the whole system.
- Offsetting one failed limit with a pass on the other.
Check your answer
- I stated the room under each cap.
- I checked the measurement boundary.
- I added the interface cost.
- I named the owner of qualification.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026