The short answer
We publish our screening scenarios because a rubric you can read is evidence, and a quality claim you cannot check is marketing. Publishing does let candidates prepare, which is fine: the scenarios are judged on sequencing and on what a candidate asks before acting, which preparation does not fake.
Every role page on this site carries the scenario we put to candidates and the rubric that separates a senior answer from a mid-level one. Staffing firms do not usually do this. Here is why we do.
A rubric you can read is evidence
Every staffing firm says its candidates are senior and well vetted. Almost none can show it, because the screen behind the claim is either private or does not exist in any form worth publishing. A published scenario turns that claim into something you can check: read the question, read what we count as a strong answer, and decide whether the bar is high enough for your team.
Preparation does not break it
The obvious objection is that publishing the questions lets candidates prepare. It does, and that is fine. The scenarios have no answer you can look up. They are judged on how a candidate sequences an incident, what they ask for before touching anything, and whether they separate a symptom from its cause. Someone who has run the platform does that naturally. Someone who has memorised a model answer struggles to sustain it in a live conversation with an engineer who has.
It filters in both directions
Publishing the screen also filters candidates usefully. The people put off by it are, in our experience, the people who would not pass it. And the ones who read it and recognise their own working life in it are exactly who we want to talk to.
What it costs us
A published bar is a bar we can be held to. If a placed engineer could not have given the senior answer to their own role's scenario, that is visible, and it is ours to fix. That accountability is the point.