Walk me through a decision where you had more than one genuinely workable option. How did you choose — and what did the winner cost you?

Real decisions are rarely good versus bad; they're trade-offs between defensible options. The cost clause is the test — someone who can't say what the chosen option gave up hasn't compared the options, they've rationalized a preference.

• What were the top two, and where exactly did they differ?
• What would have had to be true for the runner-up to win?
• Who disagreed with the choice, and on what grounds?

Options compared on criteria named before the choice, the runner-up's real advantages acknowledged, the trade-off stated plainly, and a decision made without waiting for certainty that was never coming.

The alternatives are strawmen built to lose, the criteria appear after the choice to justify it, or the candidate re-litigates every angle without ever quite landing.