Describe a time you replaced a way of working that was doing its job. Why change something that wasn't broken?

Inventing under necessity is common; walking away from a functioning default is where genuine questioning of defaults shows. The why clause forces the candidate to name what "fine" was quietly costing — and the probes test whether the switch was a managed experiment or a leap.

• What was "fine" actually costing?
• What did you risk if the new way flopped?
• How did you keep the old way available while proving the new one?
• Did anyone else adopt it afterward?

A named cost hiding inside "fine" — hours, errors, morale — a switch run as a reversible experiment rather than a leap, honest accounting of the transition's cost, and evidence the new method outlived the initial enthusiasm.

Change made for its own sake with no cost named, the old method rubbished until the story stops making sense, no fallback if the new way had failed, or an improvement that quietly evaporated once attention moved elsewhere.