Case overview
A technology company was looking for a product analyst. Many candidates had polished resumes, often refined with AI, and performed equally well in interviews and take-home assignments. We proposed adding the Red Planet analytical case, which assesses prioritization, the ability to justify hypotheses, and decision-making under uncertainty. The results revealed a large gap: only two of eight finalists met the high standard.
This case is for companies tired of candidates who look ideal on paper and want a more objective assessment of analytical thinking.
The situation and the problem
The client, a product-focused IT company, was expanding its team. It received more than 500 resumes for a product analyst role. After initial screening, eight candidates remained with nearly identical profiles: all had analytics experience, completed industry courses, and submitted portfolios.
Interviews and take-home tasks did not distinguish them; all eight scored highly. HR and the hiring manager were stuck: they had to choose, but selecting at random would be risky. The client wanted a tool that would reveal genuine differences in thinking, particularly when handling incomplete information and choices involving several criteria.
Our solution and implementation
We asked the eight finalists to complete the Red Planet analytical case, a simulation in which they select a rover landing site using limited data.
The case assesses:
- Prioritization: which areas and attributes the candidate chooses to analyze with limited resources;
- How hypotheses are justified: the logic and clarity of the written conclusion;
- Decision-making under uncertainty.
Candidates completed the simulation remotely in 40 minutes. We sent the client the results—the level of agreement with the reference solution and the quality of each candidate’s reasoning—along with a breakdown of their decisions.
Results
Before: Eight candidates had similarly strong resumes, interviews, and test results. The client could not choose.
After: Only two candidates scored above 85% for prioritization and reasoning. The other six scored below 50% after making critical mistakes in choosing which areas and attributes to analyze.
The client invited the two leading candidates to final interviews and offered the job to the stronger one.
Additional outcome: The client made Red Planet a standard step for candidates in analytics roles, cutting decision time from three weeks to one.
Conclusion: The exercise reduced reliance on subjective judgments and gave the client comparable data on how candidates think.
Before and after
| Before | After |
| Eight candidates had similar resumes and equally successful interviews. The client could not choose. | The case revealed a real gap: only two demonstrated a high level of analytical thinking; the other six were ruled out. |
| Hiring depended on interviewers’ subjective opinions and a take-home task candidates could prepare with AI. | The case produced comparable results across candidates, giving the client metrics for prioritization and reasoning. |
