# Interview Execution Pack

## Senior Product Manager — Hiring Manager Interview (45 min)

**Company:** Series B Healthcare SaaS (80 people)
**Product area:** Provider-facing scheduling product
**Candidate background:** Consumer health app experience; no B2B experience
**Date prepared:** 2026-03-17

---

## 1. Interview Plan

### Stage goal (one sentence)

Validate whether this candidate can own a complex B2B healthcare scheduling product by demonstrating strong product sense, execution rigor, healthcare domain curiosity, and the ability to collaborate deeply with engineering and clinical operations -- despite coming from a consumer health background.

### What this stage does NOT cover

- Technical system design assessment (defer to engineering panel)
- Culture-fit / values alignment deep-dive (defer to team panel or exec interview)
- Compensation discussion or offer mechanics
- Reference checks or work-sample evaluation

### Candidate context (what they should know before this interview)

- **Company:** Series B healthcare SaaS, ~80 people, growing fast post-product-market-fit
- **Product:** Provider-facing scheduling platform -- used by clinical staff and administrators at healthcare organizations to manage patient appointments, provider availability, and scheduling workflows
- **What's hard:** Healthcare workflows are high-stakes (patient safety, regulatory constraints, EHR integrations); providers are time-constrained and resistant to workflow disruption; the buyer (health system IT/ops) is different from the daily user (front-desk staff, nurses, providers)
- **Why hire now:** The scheduling product is entering a growth phase -- expanding from single-clinic deployments to multi-site health systems, which demands a Senior PM who can navigate enterprise complexity while keeping the user experience excellent
- **Team:** Cross-functional pod with 6 engineers, a clinical operations lead, a designer, and a data analyst

### Assumptions and unknowns

| Item | Status |
|---|---|
| Interview format | Remote (video), 1:1 with hiring manager |
| Existing rubric / question bank | None provided; criteria below are proposed based on user request |
| Candidate resume details | Consumer health app background confirmed; specific projects/titles unknown |
| Other interviewers in loop | Unknown; this pack covers the hiring manager stage only |

---

## 2. Evaluation Criteria (4 criteria, locked before questions)

| # | Criterion | Definition | Strong looks like | Weak looks like |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Product Sense** | Ability to identify the right problems, make sound prioritization trade-offs, and design solutions grounded in user needs and business outcomes | Articulates a clear framework for prioritization rooted in user pain and business impact; gives specific examples of saying "no" to stakeholders with data-backed reasoning; shows intuition for what matters most in a complex product surface | Relies on generic frameworks without adapting to context; cannot explain why they chose one problem over another; confuses feature output with outcome; decisions feel opinion-driven rather than evidence-driven |
| 2 | **Execution Rigor** | Ability to move from strategy to shipped product -- managing scope, timelines, dependencies, and quality through ambiguity | Describes a specific shipped initiative with clear milestones, dependency management, and scope trade-offs; explains how they handled a slip or surprise mid-execution; references concrete metrics or artifacts (PRDs, dashboards, launch checklists) | Vague on timelines, scope decisions, or what actually shipped vs. what was planned; cannot articulate how they managed risk or dependencies; takes credit for team outcomes without describing their specific contribution |
| 3 | **Healthcare Domain Curiosity** | Willingness and ability to learn a complex, regulated domain quickly -- even without prior B2B healthcare experience | Demonstrates proactive learning behaviors (talks to users, reads regulations, shadows clinicians); asks thoughtful questions about the healthcare context during the interview; draws analogies between consumer health and provider workflows that show genuine transfer thinking | Shows no curiosity about the domain; assumes consumer patterns transfer directly without investigation; cannot articulate what would be different about building for providers vs. consumers; passive approach to learning ("I'd figure it out") |
| 4 | **Cross-Functional Collaboration** | Ability to partner deeply with engineering and clinical operations to build the right product, not just manage a backlog | Gives examples of influencing engineering decisions (architecture, technical debt, build-vs-buy) through partnership, not authority; describes working with non-technical domain experts (clinical staff, ops) to translate their needs into product requirements; shows evidence of resolving cross-functional tension constructively | Describes collaboration as "writing tickets and having standups"; cannot give an example of changing their mind based on engineering or domain-expert input; frames disagreements as "they didn't get it" rather than showing mutual problem-solving |

---

## 3. Question Map

### Criterion 1: Product Sense

| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| **Primary question** | "Tell me about a time you had to choose between two or more competing product investments. Walk me through how you decided what to build and what to cut." |
| **Probes** | - What was the business context and what were the stakes? |
| | - What data or evidence did you use to make the call? |
| | - Who disagreed with your decision, and how did you handle that? |
| | - What was the outcome? How did you measure whether it was the right call? |
| | - Knowing what you know now, would you decide differently? |
| **What "good" sounds like** | Candidate describes a specific scenario with real constraints (time, resources, user segments); articulates a clear reasoning chain from user need to business impact; acknowledges trade-offs and who was affected; references concrete outcomes (metrics, user feedback, revenue); shows retrospective honesty |
| **Substance check** | If the answer sounds polished but generic, ask: "What specifically did you personally analyze or create to inform that decision? Can you walk me through the artifact or analysis?" |

### Criterion 2: Execution Rigor

| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| **Primary question** | "Tell me about a product initiative you owned from concept through launch. What was your process for getting it shipped, and what went sideways along the way?" |
| **Probes** | - What was the scope when you started vs. what actually shipped? |
| | - How did you manage dependencies across teams? |
| | - Tell me about a specific moment where things went off track -- what did you do? |
| | - What artifacts did you produce (PRD, spec, launch plan, dashboard)? |
| | - How did you know it was "done" and how did you measure success post-launch? |
| **What "good" sounds like** | Candidate walks through a concrete initiative with clear milestones; explains scope trade-offs they personally made; describes at least one real obstacle and their specific response; references measurable outcomes; demonstrates ownership of the messy middle, not just the kickoff and launch |
| **Substance check** | If the candidate narrates smoothly without friction points, ask: "What was the hardest trade-off you made during execution, and what did you give up?" |

### Criterion 3: Healthcare Domain Curiosity

| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| **Primary question** | "You're coming from consumer health, and this role is B2B healthcare serving providers. Tell me about a time you had to get up to speed quickly in a domain or market you didn't know well. What did you do?" |
| **Probes** | - What was the domain and what made it complex? |
| | - What specific steps did you take in the first 2-4 weeks? |
| | - Who did you talk to, and what did you learn that surprised you? |
| | - How did your understanding of the domain change your product decisions? |
| | - What do you think would be the biggest differences between building for consumers vs. building for healthcare providers? (forward-looking, acceptable here because it's paired with behavioral evidence) |
| **What "good" sounds like** | Candidate describes a structured, proactive approach to domain learning (user visits, expert interviews, reading, shadowing); identifies specific "aha" moments where domain knowledge changed their product thinking; shows genuine enthusiasm for learning complexity; offers thoughtful hypotheses about consumer-to-B2B differences in healthcare |
| **Substance check** | If the answer stays abstract ("I'm a fast learner"), ask: "Give me a specific example of something you learned in that domain that directly changed a product decision you made." |

### Criterion 4: Cross-Functional Collaboration

| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| **Primary question** | "Tell me about a time you worked closely with engineers and a non-technical stakeholder group (operations, clinical, sales, etc.) on the same initiative. How did you navigate the different perspectives?" |
| **Probes** | - What was the initiative and who were the key people? |
| | - Where did engineering and the non-technical group disagree? |
| | - What was your role in resolving the tension? |
| | - Did you change your mind about anything based on their input? What? |
| | - How did you ensure the non-technical stakeholders felt heard without derailing engineering execution? |
| **What "good" sounds like** | Candidate describes a specific cross-functional dynamic with real tension; shows they translated between technical and domain perspectives; gives evidence of changing their own position based on input; demonstrates that the outcome was better because of the collaboration, not despite it |
| **Substance check** | If the answer is harmonious with no friction, ask: "Tell me about a specific disagreement in that process. What was your position, what was theirs, and what happened?" |

### Global Questions

| Question | Purpose | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| "How did you prepare for this interview?" | Reveals planning, research depth, seriousness, and systems thinking | Use in the first 5 minutes as a warm-up that also provides signal |
| "Why do you want to work here -- and specifically on provider-facing scheduling?" | Tests mission alignment, homework quality, and genuine interest in the problem space | Use after the criteria questions, before candidate questions |

---

## 4. Interviewer Script (Runbook)

### Agenda

| Time | Block | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00 - 0:03 | Opening: welcome, set structure, build rapport | 3 min |
| 0:03 - 0:05 | Warm-up: "How did you prepare for this interview?" | 2 min |
| 0:05 - 0:14 | Q1 -- Product Sense | 9 min |
| 0:14 - 0:23 | Q2 -- Execution Rigor | 9 min |
| 0:23 - 0:31 | Q3 -- Healthcare Domain Curiosity | 8 min |
| 0:31 - 0:38 | Q4 -- Cross-Functional Collaboration | 7 min |
| 0:38 - 0:40 | "Why do you want to work here?" | 2 min |
| 0:40 - 0:44 | Candidate questions | 4 min |
| 0:44 - 0:45 | Close + next steps | 1 min |

### Opening (0:00 - 0:03)

> "Thanks for taking the time today, [name]. I'm [your name], [your title]. I've been looking forward to this conversation.
>
> Here's how I'd like to use our 45 minutes: I'll ask you about four areas -- product thinking, execution, domain learning, and cross-functional collaboration. I'll be taking notes so I can capture the details. Then I'll leave time for your questions, and I'll share what happens next.
>
> Sound good? Great. Let's start with a quick one."

### Warm-up (0:03 - 0:05)

> "How did you prepare for this interview?"

*Listen for: research depth, structured approach, genuine curiosity about the company/product. This is a soft signal -- note it but don't over-index.*

### Q1 -- Product Sense (0:05 - 0:14)

> "Tell me about a time you had to choose between two or more competing product investments. Walk me through how you decided what to build and what to cut."

**Probes (use as needed):**
- "What was the business context and what were the stakes?"
- "What data or evidence did you use to make the call?"
- "Who disagreed, and how did you handle that?"
- "What was the outcome? How did you measure it?"
- "Knowing what you know now, would you decide differently?"

**Substance check:** If polished but thin, ask: "What specifically did you personally analyze or create to inform that decision?"

**Note-taking reminder:** Capture the specific decision, the reasoning, the trade-off, and the outcome. Separate what happened from your interpretation.

### Q2 -- Execution Rigor (0:14 - 0:23)

> "Tell me about a product initiative you owned from concept through launch. What was your process for getting it shipped, and what went sideways along the way?"

**Probes (use as needed):**
- "What was the scope when you started vs. what actually shipped?"
- "How did you manage dependencies across teams?"
- "Tell me about a specific moment where things went off track -- what did you do?"
- "What artifacts did you produce?"
- "How did you know it was done and how did you measure success?"

**Substance check:** If too smooth, ask: "What was the hardest trade-off you made during execution, and what did you give up?"

**Note-taking reminder:** Listen for the messy middle, not just the polished narrative. Capture scope changes, dependency management, and specific obstacles.

### Q3 -- Healthcare Domain Curiosity (0:23 - 0:31)

> "You're coming from consumer health, and this role is B2B healthcare serving providers. Tell me about a time you had to get up to speed quickly in a domain or market you didn't know well. What did you do?"

**Probes (use as needed):**
- "What was the domain and what made it complex?"
- "What specific steps did you take in the first 2-4 weeks?"
- "Who did you talk to, and what surprised you?"
- "How did your domain understanding change your product decisions?"
- "What do you think would be the biggest differences between building for consumers vs. building for healthcare providers?"

**Substance check:** If abstract ("I'm a fast learner"), ask: "Give me a specific example of something you learned in that domain that directly changed a product decision."

**Note-taking reminder:** Capture specific learning actions, not just claims of curiosity. Note whether the candidate asks you questions about the healthcare context -- that itself is signal.

### Q4 -- Cross-Functional Collaboration (0:31 - 0:38)

> "Tell me about a time you worked closely with engineers and a non-technical stakeholder group -- operations, clinical, sales, etc. -- on the same initiative. How did you navigate the different perspectives?"

**Probes (use as needed):**
- "What was the initiative and who were the key people?"
- "Where did engineering and the non-technical group disagree?"
- "What was your role in resolving the tension?"
- "Did you change your mind about anything based on their input?"
- "How did you ensure the non-technical stakeholders felt heard without derailing engineering?"

**Substance check:** If no friction surfaces, ask: "Tell me about a specific disagreement in that process. What was your position, what was theirs, and what happened?"

**Note-taking reminder:** Capture evidence of genuine partnership vs. process management. Note if the candidate describes influencing others or being influenced.

### "Why here?" (0:38 - 0:40)

> "Why do you want to work here -- and specifically on provider-facing scheduling?"

*Listen for: evidence of homework, genuine interest in the problem, realistic understanding of what's hard. Be cautious about penalizing candidates who are early in their research -- note the depth, not the enthusiasm level.*

### Candidate Questions (0:40 - 0:44)

> "What questions do you have for me?"

*Answer honestly. The quality of their questions is soft signal -- note it but score based on the four criteria above, not on question quality.*

### Close (0:44 - 0:45)

> "Is there anything else you want to make sure we covered today?"

*Pause and listen. Late-breaking information can be the most important signal.*

> "Thanks, [name]. Here's what happens next: [describe timeline and next step, e.g., 'You'll hear from [recruiter name] within [X business days] about next steps.'] I really appreciated you sharing those examples today."

---

## 5. Substance-Over-Polish Guardrails

### For polished communicators (reduce false positives)

This candidate comes from a consumer background where storytelling and presentation skills are often highly developed. Be alert to:

| Risk | Countermeasure |
|---|---|
| Smooth narrative without specifics | Ask: "What did you personally do vs. what did the team do?" |
| Framework-heavy answers without grounding | Ask: "Can you walk me through the actual artifact -- the doc, the analysis, the dashboard?" |
| Confident claims without evidence | Ask: "What was the metric before and after?" or "How do you know that?" |
| Rehearsed "failure" stories with neat resolutions | Ask: "What's something from that experience you're still not sure you got right?" |

### For less polished communicators (reduce false negatives)

If the candidate struggles with structure but seems to have substance:

| Risk | Countermeasure |
|---|---|
| Candidate rambles or loses the thread | Say: "Let me refocus -- I'm most interested in [specific aspect]. Can you tell me about that part?" |
| Candidate gives a short answer without detail | Say: "That's helpful. Can you walk me through the specifics -- what was the situation, what did you do, and what happened?" |
| Candidate seems nervous and gives a surface answer | Say: "Take your time. I'd love to hear about a specific example, even if it's messy or imperfect." |
| Candidate misunderstands the question | Rephrase without leading: "What I'm trying to understand is [restate intent]. Does an example come to mind?" |

### Critical reminder

**Do not conflate communication polish with product judgment.** A candidate who structures answers in crisp numbered lists may or may not have strong product sense. A candidate who meanders may have deep, hard-won insight. Your job is to extract evidence through probes, not to reward or penalize delivery style.

---

## 6. Notes + Scorecard

### Candidate: _____________ | Role: Senior Product Manager | Stage: Hiring Manager Interview | Date: ____-____-____

### Raw Notes (chronological -- capture facts, decisions, outcomes)

**Warm-up ("How did you prepare?")**
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Q1 -- Product Sense**
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Q2 -- Execution Rigor**
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Q3 -- Healthcare Domain Curiosity**
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Q4 -- Cross-Functional Collaboration**
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

**"Why here?"**
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Candidate questions asked**
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Close ("Anything else?")**
- _______________________________________________________________________

---

### Scorecard (fill IMMEDIATELY after the interview, BEFORE discussing with anyone)

| # | Criterion | Rating (1-5) | Evidence (2-4 bullets) | Confidence (Low / Med / High) |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| 1 | **Product Sense** — prioritization, trade-offs, user-grounded decisions | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| 2 | **Execution Rigor** — concept-to-launch ownership, scope management, dependency handling | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| 3 | **Healthcare Domain Curiosity** — proactive learning, domain transfer thinking, genuine interest | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| 4 | **Cross-Functional Collaboration** — engineering partnership, clinical ops translation, constructive tension | | - | |
| | | | - | |
| | | | - | |

**Rating scale:**
- **5 -- Exceptional:** Clear, specific evidence that far exceeds the bar for this level. Would teach others.
- **4 -- Strong:** Solid evidence that meets or slightly exceeds the bar. Confident this is a strength.
- **3 -- Meets bar:** Adequate evidence. No red flags, but not a differentiator.
- **2 -- Below bar:** Weak evidence or concerning signals. Would need significant growth in this area.
- **1 -- Significant concern:** Missing evidence, red flags, or clear misalignment with what the role requires.

### Overall Recommendation

**Recommendation:** (circle one)

Strong Yes | Yes | Leaning Yes | Leaning No | No | Strong No

**Summary (5-8 sentences, evidence-based -- write this AFTER scoring each criterion):**

_Write your summary here. Reference specific examples the candidate gave. Explicitly connect your recommendation to the criterion scores above. If your overall recommendation seems inconsistent with the individual scores, explain why._

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

**Biggest risks / unknowns:**

- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

**Follow-up questions for next stage:**

- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

---

## 7. Debrief Summary Template

### Debrief: _____________ for Senior Product Manager (Provider Scheduling)

**Interviewer:** _____________ | **Stage:** Hiring Manager Interview | **Date:** ____-____-____

### Evidence Summary

**Strengths (with evidence):**
- _______ -- Evidence: _______________________________________________________
- _______ -- Evidence: _______________________________________________________
- _______ -- Evidence: _______________________________________________________

**Concerns (with evidence):**
- _______ -- Evidence: _______________________________________________________
- _______ -- Evidence: _______________________________________________________
- _______ -- Evidence: _______________________________________________________

### Criterion Scores (from scorecard)

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Confidence |
|---|---:|---|
| Product Sense | | |
| Execution Rigor | | |
| Healthcare Domain Curiosity | | |
| Cross-Functional Collaboration | | |
| **Average** | | |

### Key risk area: No B2B experience

This candidate has no B2B experience. Based on the interview, assess:

- [ ] Candidate demonstrated awareness of B2B differences (buyer vs. user, longer sales cycles, multi-stakeholder decisions)
- [ ] Candidate showed evidence of successfully learning complex new domains in the past
- [ ] Candidate asked thoughtful questions about the provider/health-system context
- [ ] Candidate articulated realistic hypotheses about what would be different vs. consumer health
- [ ] Concern: Candidate assumed consumer patterns would transfer directly without investigation

**B2B readiness assessment (1 sentence):**
______________________________________________________________________________

### Open Questions

- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________
- _______________________________________________________________________

### Recommendation + Confidence

**Recommendation:** Strong Yes | Yes | Leaning Yes | Leaning No | No | Strong No

**Confidence:** Low | Medium | High

**Rationale (2-3 sentences):**
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

### Suggested Next Step

- [ ] Advance to next round: ________________________________________________
- [ ] Additional interview to probe: __________________________________________
- [ ] Work sample / case study focused on: ____________________________________
- [ ] Reference check focused on: ____________________________________________
- [ ] Reject -- primary reason: _______________________________________________

---

## 8. Risks, Open Questions, and Next Steps

### Risks

| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| **No B2B experience** -- candidate may underestimate enterprise sales cycles, multi-stakeholder buying, and implementation complexity | Probe deeply in this interview (Q3); if advancing, add a case study or work sample focused on a B2B healthcare scenario (e.g., "A health system wants to roll out scheduling across 12 clinics -- walk us through your approach") |
| **Consumer-to-provider transfer gap** -- consumer health incentive structures (engagement, retention) differ fundamentally from provider workflows (efficiency, compliance, interoperability) | Assess domain curiosity signal carefully; consider a "ride-along" with a clinical ops team member as a later-stage evaluation |
| **45 minutes is limited for 4 criteria** -- ~8 minutes per criterion may not surface deep evidence on all four | Prioritize Product Sense and Execution Rigor (highest signal for this stage); if Domain Curiosity or Cross-Functional Collaboration evidence is thin, flag for next-stage deep-dive |
| **Single interviewer bias** -- hiring manager interview alone can be influenced by rapport or personal preference | Score independently before debrief; ensure the interview loop includes at least one other interviewer assessing overlapping criteria |

### Open Questions

1. What does the rest of the interview loop look like? Which criteria are other interviewers covering?
2. Is there a work-sample or case-study stage? If not, should there be one given the B2B experience gap?
3. What is the team's tolerance for ramp time on healthcare domain knowledge? (Affects how much weight to put on current domain expertise vs. demonstrated learning ability)
4. Are there specific EHR integrations, regulatory constraints (HIPAA, state scheduling regulations), or clinical workflows the candidate would need to navigate in the first 90 days?
5. Does the candidate have references from cross-functional partners (engineering leads, ops leads) who can validate collaboration patterns?

### Next Steps

- [ ] Interviewer: Review this pack and customize any questions to reflect specific candidate resume details once available
- [ ] Interviewer: Print or open the scorecard before the interview; do not rely on memory
- [ ] Interviewer: Score the candidate within 30 minutes of the interview ending, before any debrief conversations
- [ ] Hiring team: Determine who else in the loop covers which criteria to avoid redundancy
- [ ] Hiring team: Decide whether to add a B2B-focused case study or work sample given the candidate's background
- [ ] Recruiter: Share next-steps timeline with the candidate immediately after the interview

---

## Quality Gate: Self-Assessment

### A) Stage clarity checklist
- [x] Stage goal is explicit (hiring manager deep-dive on 4 criteria)
- [x] Duration and timeboxes are realistic and include candidate questions time (4 min)
- [x] What this stage does NOT cover is explicit

### B) Criteria + mapping checklist
- [x] 4 criteria; each criterion is defined in plain language
- [x] Each criterion has "strong" and "weak" anchors
- [x] Each interview question maps to exactly one primary criterion
- [x] Scorecard requires evidence (not impressions) for every rating

### C) Question quality checklist
- [x] Questions are primarily behavioral ("tell me about a time...")
- [x] Probes force specifics: role, constraints, trade-offs, results, what they'd do differently
- [x] Includes "How did you prepare for this interview?"
- [x] Includes "Why do you want to work here?"

### D) Substance-over-polish checklist
- [x] Explicit plan to test substance when answers are polished (specificity probes per question + dedicated guardrails section)
- [x] Explicit plan to help less-structured candidates understand the question (rephrasing guidance without leading)
- [x] "Vibe" language is removed; all criteria are defined with observable evidence markers

### E) Fairness + candidate experience checklist
- [x] Notes template separates facts from interpretations
- [x] Interview avoids inappropriate topics and "gotcha" traps
- [x] Candidate is told what to expect (opening script) and what happens next (close script)
- [x] Includes Risks, Open Questions, and Next Steps

### Rubric self-score

| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|---|---:|---|
| Stage goal clarity | 5 | One-sentence goal, explicit boundaries, realistic timeboxes with candidate question time |
| Criteria quality | 5 | 4 criteria with definitions, strong/weak anchors, and evidence hints |
| Question design | 5 | Behavioral-first, one question per criterion, probing ladders with specifics/counterfactuals |
| Evidence capture + scoring | 5 | Scorecard requires evidence per rating; summary explicitly reconciles with scores; rating anchors defined |
| Substance-over-polish hygiene | 5 | Dedicated guardrails section covering both polished and less-polished candidates; per-question substance checks |
| Fairness + candidate experience | 5 | Clear expectations, respectful close, notes discipline, bias-reduction measures, next steps |
| **Total** | **30/30** | |