Tell me about a rule or policy you thought was wrong but had to work under anyway. What did you do with the disagreement?

Nobody agrees with every rule they work under; the signal is where the disagreement went. This surfaces whether a candidate can dissent through a channel that could change something while complying in good faith — or whether disagreement leaks out as quiet sabotage.

• What made it wrong in your eyes?
• Where did you raise it, and what came back?
• How did you present the policy to people you worked with?
• What would have made you stop complying?

The objection was raised where it could actually change something, compliance was real in the meantime — not minimal or theatrical — the policy was represented fairly to colleagues despite the disagreement, and they can name their own line between disagreeing and refusing.

Compliance was selective when nobody was looking, the disagreement traveled sideways as corridor complaint but never upward, the policy was presented to others as the candidate's own view of a bad rule, or they claim to have never disagreed with one at all.