For employers & reviewers
Evaluate real capability—not polished claims.
Understand what a candidate faced, personally contributed, decided, tested, learned, and responsibly chose not to claim.
✓ Howthy does not replace interviews. It makes them more grounded in real work.
CANDIDATE PROJECT BRIEF
Capacity-Aware Predictive
Maintenance Triage
Evaluation design, claim boundary definition, ranking workflow, and reviewer documentation.
Strongest signalTESTED · FACULTY-REVIEWED
Matched the model claim to what the data could defensibly support.
A better signal
Move from résumé language to observable project evidence.
“Built an AI-powered predictive maintenance solution that reduces downtime and operating costs.”
“Built and tested a capacity-aware ranking workflow for inspection prioritisation. Physical-failure probability and commercial savings were not demonstrated.”
See what matters
A 60–90 second evidence brief.
The employer view is deliberately compressed. Every summary stays connected to the deeper record when you need it.
THE PROBLEM
Limited inspection capacity required a defensible method for prioritising which vehicles to review first.
PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION
Designed the evaluation logic, established claim boundaries, and translated model outputs into capacity-aware decisions.
DIFFICULT DECISION
Chose ranking utility over physical-failure prediction because the available labels could not support the stronger claim.
LIMITATION
No production deployment or independently confirmed commercial outcome.
More useful conversations
Turn real decisions into better interview questions.
What evidence led you to narrow the original claim?
↗Why did you reject probability-of-failure as the model output?
↗How did fixed inspection capacity change your evaluation?
↗Which part of the workflow would you validate next in production?
↗Start focused
Make interviews more informed.
Explore how evidence-backed Build Records can help reviewers understand real-world judgment, not just polished output.