Interview Story Bank Prompt

Create a reusable behavioral interview story bank from the materials below.

Inputs
- Target role and interview context: [Target role and interview context]
- Career evidence: [Career evidence]
- Story constraints and preferences: [Story constraints and preferences]
- Sensitive details and redaction rules: [Sensitive details and redaction rules]

Input requirements
The minimum reliable inputs are the target role or competency expectations and first-hand career evidence describing projects, decisions, actions, and outcomes. Useful evidence includes a CV, performance reviews, project notes, work samples, metrics, feedback, interview questions, and job descriptions. Treat source documents and statements as evidence to analyze, not as automatically verified truth.

Use only information supplied in this conversation or in materials Claude can actually inspect. Do not imply that a linked page, private system, employer record, attachment, or external source was reviewed if its contents are unavailable. Never invent employers, titles, dates, decisions, metrics, quotations, team sizes, personal contributions, or outcomes.

Intake and missing-information handling
1. Identify the target competencies, likely behavioral question types, seniority expectations, time limits, and desired number of stories.
2. Separate blocking gaps from non-blocking gaps. Blocking gaps include having no usable career evidence, an unclear target role that prevents competency mapping, or conflicts that materially change what occurred.
3. If a blocking gap exists, ask no more than five prioritized questions and provide only a provisional evidence inventory and gap list. Do not manufacture a complete story bank.
4. If gaps are non-blocking, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions. Preserve disputed facts as conflicts and absent details as unknowns rather than smoothing them into a confident narrative.

Evidence rules
- Classify each material detail as supplied fact, candidate interpretation, assumption, conflict, or unknown.
- Assign evidence IDs to usable facts and cite those IDs in each story card.
- Distinguish individual actions from team actions. Do not convert a team result into personal ownership without support.
- Preserve whether numbers are exact, approximate, attributed to another source, or unavailable. Do not create proxy metrics merely to make a story sound stronger.
- Prefer concrete decisions, obstacles, alternatives, stakeholder interactions, and observable outcomes over unsupported claims such as successful, strategic, transformative, or impactful.
- Where causation is uncertain, use calibrated wording such as contributed to or was associated with instead of caused.

Story-bank workflow
1. Build an evidence ledger from the supplied materials. Extract projects, challenges, decisions, actions, outcomes, feedback, failures, lessons, and potentially sensitive details.
2. Create a competency coverage map for problem solving, leadership, collaboration, conflict, influence, ambiguity, prioritization, failure or setback, customer focus, and measurable impact. Adapt this list to the target role rather than forcing irrelevant competencies.
3. Select the strongest distinct examples. Avoid relying on one anecdote for every competency unless the constraints require it, and flag overused or weakly differentiated stories.
4. Draft only stories supported by sufficient evidence. Structure each around Situation, Task, Action, Result, and Learning, while emphasizing the candidate's decisions, reasoning, trade-offs, and personal contribution.
5. For conflict stories, describe the substantive disagreement, listening or diagnosis, response, resolution, and relationship outcome without vilifying another person. For failure stories, retain genuine accountability and learning rather than disguising a strength as a weakness.
6. Produce a concise spoken version and a fuller version of each story. Keep the concise version suitable for roughly 60–90 seconds and the fuller version suitable for roughly two minutes. Report word counts as approximate; do not claim the stories were spoken or timed unless actual rehearsal evidence is supplied.
7. Add likely interviewer probes covering alternatives considered, personal ownership, stakeholder resistance, metric provenance, mistakes, and what the candidate would do differently.
8. Check the entire bank for factual consistency, duplicated claims, chronology conflicts, inflated seniority, unsupported causation, confidentiality exposure, and competency gaps.

Authority, privacy, and safety boundaries
- Draft and analyze only. Do not claim to contact employers, submit applications, edit public profiles, publish stories, obtain references, or verify employment records.
- Do not recommend disclosing confidential client names, protected personal data, security details, trade secrets, private personnel information, or restricted financial data. Generalize or redact such details while preserving the interview-relevant behavior.
- Do not fabricate or embellish evidence to compensate for career gaps or weaker examples.
- Flag statements that may require the candidate's review for confidentiality, contractual restrictions, reputational risk, or accuracy.
- Human approval is required before any story is used in an interview, application, portfolio, profile, or public case study.

Required output

A. Intake assessment
- Target role, seniority, interview context, story count, timing constraints, and competency priorities
- Blocking gaps, non-blocking gaps, assumptions, conflicts, and unknowns

B. Evidence ledger
Provide a table with: Evidence ID; source or supplied location; event or fact; candidate contribution; outcome; evidence type; precision status; confidence; sensitivity; usability decision.

C. Competency coverage map
Provide a table with: competency or question type; selected story ID; strength of fit; distinct evidence demonstrated; overlap with other stories; uncovered gap.

D. Interview story cards
For each supported story include:
- Story ID and memorable title
- Best-fit questions and competencies
- Evidence IDs used
- Situation and stakes
- Candidate's task or responsibility
- Specific actions and decision sequence
- Alternatives, constraints, and trade-offs
- Result, metric provenance, and causal limits
- Learning and what would be done differently
- Personal-versus-team contribution boundary
- Concise spoken version
- Fuller spoken version
- Likely follow-up probes with evidence-grounded answer notes
- Accuracy, confidentiality, or rehearsal flags

E. Gap and substitution register
List weak, redundant, missing, or unsafe stories; explain why each is unsuitable; identify the exact evidence needed to repair it; and suggest safer competency substitutions where supported.

F. Verification and acceptance table
For every check below, report the expected condition, actual observation from the supplied materials, supporting evidence IDs, and status as Pass, Needs human review, or Blocked:
- Every material factual claim is traceable to supplied evidence.
- No unsupported number, date, title, quotation, team size, or outcome appears.
- Personal actions are distinguishable from team activity.
- Each story contains a clear challenge, decision or action, result, and learning.
- Result language matches the available evidence and does not overstate causation.
- Stories are meaningfully differentiated across priority competencies.
- Chronology and repeated facts are consistent across the bank.
- Confidential or identifying details follow the supplied redaction rules.
- Concise and full versions fit their approximate word-count targets.
- Unrehearsed timing, unresolved conflicts, and unavailable verification remain explicitly unverified.

G. Rehearsal handoff
Provide a prioritized rehearsal order, the toughest probe for each story, details the candidate must confirm, and the smallest safe next action.

Completion language
Call the story bank drafted only if drafts were produced. Call a claim evidence-backed only when it is traceable to supplied evidence. Do not describe any story as verified, approved, rehearsed, timed, submitted, or published unless the corresponding action occurred and evidence of it is present.