Dyson Assessment Tests

Dyson Situational Judgement Test

1. Question 1 of 10

   You work in a procurement office. You are collecting quotes for a printing contract. One of the bidders is a company owned by your brother-in-law; he did not know you were involved and submitted through the normal channel. His quote is genuinely the cheapest. The evaluation is due next week and your procurement manager does not know of the connection. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Continue with the evaluation and score strictly on price and quality, since his quote is genuinely the cheapest and the process will produce the right answer anyway.
   2. Tell your procurement manager about the family connection now and ask to be taken off the evaluation of this contract.
   3. Say nothing about the connection and let the evaluation run, since he submitted through the normal channel and had no idea you would be involved in assessing it.
   4. Exclude your brother-in-law's quote from the shortlist so there is no question of favouritism, and evaluate the remaining bids as normal.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Tell your procurement manager about the family connection now and ask to be taken off the evaluation of this contract.

   Least effective: C. Say nothing about the connection and let the evaluation run, since he submitted through the normal channel and had no idea you would be involved in assessing it.

   A: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: whether you can fairly evaluate a relative's bid is not yours to decide. Even a perfectly scored outcome is unsafe if the connection is only discovered afterwards.

   C: Breaches confidentiality or process: it conceals a conflict of interest from the people running a competitive tender. The innocence of how the bid arrived does not cure the fact that only you know, and you are scoring it.

   D: Removes the cheapest compliant bid: it removes a compliant and cheapest bid on your own authority, which is as much an unauthorised intervention as choosing it would be, and it costs the employer money.

   The most effective response is to tell your procurement manager about the family connection now and ask to be taken off the evaluation: you have a conflict of interest, the remedy is to declare it and step back, and doing so now leaves time before next week for someone else to take it on. It protects the process, the employer and your brother-in-law’s legitimate bid. It beats continuing the evaluation and scoring strictly on price and quality, because a fair score does not fix an undeclared conflict; if the connection emerges later, the whole award is open to challenge however well it was scored. It beats excluding his quote from the shortlist to remove any question of favouritism, because that is an intervention of your own that drops the cheapest compliant bid and costs the employer money. The least effective response is saying nothing about the connection and letting the evaluation run: it hides a conflict from the people running a tender while you continue to score it, the one response that leaves nobody able to protect the process. That is worse than the other two, which act wrongly but at least without concealment. The principle: declare a conflict of interest to the person running the process, and let them decide what you should and should not touch.

2. Question 2 of 10

   You work in a freight forwarding office. Your colleague Ben handles customs paperwork and is off sick today. A shipment he was preparing must be lodged with customs by 4pm or it misses its vessel and waits a week. You have done the paperwork before but not for this commodity. It is 1pm. Your office manager is on site and there is a customs broker the company uses. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Leave the shipment for Ben to lodge when he is back, since the paperwork is his responsibility and it would be worse to submit a customs entry that turns out to be wrong.
   2. Start the paperwork yourself and work through it carefully, asking the office manager only if you reach something you genuinely cannot resolve before 4pm.
   3. Ring the customs broker and ask them to lodge the entry, since they handle this commodity routinely and the deadline leaves no room for a mistake.
   4. Tell the office manager now that Ben is off and the 4pm customs deadline is at risk, say what you can do, and agree whether you proceed or the broker is used.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Tell the office manager now that Ben is off and the 4pm customs deadline is at risk, say what you can do, and agree whether you proceed or the broker is used.

   Least effective: A. Leave the shipment for Ben to lodge when he is back, since the paperwork is his responsibility and it would be worse to submit a customs entry that turns out to be wrong.

   A: Hides the problem / silent deadline slip: the shipment misses its vessel and waits a week, and nobody with the power to prevent it is told. Caution about accuracy does not explain the silence.

   B: Acts on assumptions without checking: three hours is enough only if nothing goes wrong on a commodity you have never handled, and the point at which you find out is likely to be too late to change course.

   C: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: using the broker incurs a cost the office manager has not agreed, and she is on site and able to decide in a minute.

   The most effective response is to tell the office manager now that Ben is off and the 4pm customs deadline is at risk, say what you can do, and agree whether you proceed or the broker is used: there are three hours, two possible routes and a cost decision attached to one of them, and she is on site and owns that choice. Telling her what you can and cannot do lets her pick quickly. It beats starting the paperwork yourself and asking only if you reach something you cannot resolve, because pressing on alone with an unfamiliar commodity risks discovering the problem when neither route is available any more. It beats ringing the customs broker to lodge the entry, because that commits the company to a cost that is not yours to authorise, when she is a minute away. The least effective response is leaving the shipment for Ben to lodge when he is back: it lets it miss its vessel and wait a week without telling anyone who could have prevented it, using the absent colleague’s ownership as the reason. That is worse than the other two, which pick a route without permission but keep the shipment moving. The principle: when a deadline is at risk and the choice of route has a cost, raise it with the person who decides while both routes are still open.

3. Question 3 of 10

   You are a designer at an architecture practice. You and your colleague Joel jointly developed a cladding detail that cut a project’s costs significantly. At this week’s internal review, Joel presented it as his own work, and the design director asked him to lead its rollout across other projects. Afterwards you told Joel the idea was joint; he disagreed, saying his early sketches came first, and the exchange grew tense before you were both called away. The design director has told the team she wants concerns brought to her directly. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Leave the disagreement where it is and concentrate on making your contribution visible on the next project, keeping dated records of your design work so any future dispute can be settled with evidence.
   2. Email the practice partners, copying Joel and the design director, to state that Joel has claimed sole credit for joint work and to request that the rollout be reassigned before he presents the detail more widely.
   3. Take your dated records to the design director privately, ask her to establish how the detail actually developed, and let her decide how the credit and the rollout should be handled.
   4. Ask Joel for a private conversation once you are both free, compare your records of how the detail developed, and propose that you tell the design director together how the work was shared.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Ask Joel for a private conversation once you are both free, compare your records of how the detail developed, and propose that you tell the design director together how the work was shared.

   Least effective: B. Email the practice partners, copying Joel and the design director, to state that Joel has claimed sole credit for joint work and to request that the rollout be reassigned before he presents the detail more widely.

   A: Avoids the difficult conversation: better records protect you next time, but the misattribution stands now, and it hardens with every project the rollout reaches; the disagreement with Joel is live and only a conversation can resolve it.

   B: Escalates destructively over everyone's head: a written accusation to the partners, demanding reassignment before any real attempt to resolve the disagreement, turns a recoverable dispute between colleagues into a formal grievance in front of the whole leadership, an attack rather than a resolution.

   C: Escalates prematurely: the director has invited concerns, but going to her before you and Joel have properly compared records asks her to adjudicate a dispute the two of you have not yet tried to resolve, and Joel first hears your case from his boss rather than from you.

   The most effective response is to ask Joel for a private conversation, compare your records, and propose telling the design director together: the disagreement is with Joel, so the first move is a calm conversation over the actual evidence, aiming at a joint account you can both stand behind when the director hears it. It beats leaving the disagreement alone and keeping dated records for next time, because that leaves the misattribution standing just as the rollout spreads the detail across other projects; record keeping protects the future while conceding the present. It beats taking your records to the design director privately, because that asks her to adjudicate before the two of you have genuinely tried to resolve it yourselves, and turns a recoverable peer disagreement into a case argued behind Joel’s back. The least effective response is emailing the partners to accuse Joel and demand the rollout be reassigned: unlike staying quiet, which at least does no further damage, and unlike going to the design director, which goes quietly to one person and leaves the outcome open, it broadcasts a written accusation to the leadership and demands his project be taken away before any resolution has been attempted. That is escalation as attack. The principle: resolve conflict with the person first, privately and on evidence; involve authority only after that fails, and never by public accusation.

4. Question 4 of 10

   You are an administrator in a college admissions office. It is results week, your colleague who shares the enquiry inbox is off sick, and incoming enquiries have roughly doubled since Monday. You have also promised the finance office an enrolment reconciliation they need before they can start invoicing tuition fees. This morning the queue of unanswered enquiries is growing visibly, and your team leader asks how you plan to manage the day. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Assure your team leader you will cover the doubled enquiries and still deliver the reconciliation today, so nobody needs to worry about the absence.
   2. Set the reconciliation aside for the week and put all your time into the enquiry queue, assuming the finance office can start invoicing a little later.
   3. Take a few minutes to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover today and where support is needed, then work through the enquiries steadily.
   4. Tell your team leader, in front of the rest of the team, that the situation is unmanageable and management should have arranged cover, and continue only with your normal workload.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Take a few minutes to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover today and where support is needed, then work through the enquiries steadily.

   Least effective: D. Tell your team leader, in front of the rest of the team, that the situation is unmanageable and management should have arranged cover, and continue only with your normal workload.

   A: Over-promises: committing to absorb a doubled enquiry load and still deliver the reconciliation today gambles on a pace one person is unlikely to sustain, and sets up a late failure that is harder to manage than an honest assessment now.

   B: Abandons own committed work: dropping the reconciliation on an assumption leaves the finance office unable to start invoicing, without checking what they actually need, a promise quietly shelved rather than pressure honestly managed.

   D: Blames others publicly: announcing in front of the team that the situation is unmanageable, while refusing to adapt, turns pressure into complaint; it does nothing to reduce the queue and undermines the team leader and colleagues who still have to cope.

   The most effective response is to assess the workload, tell your team leader realistically what you can cover and where support is needed, then work the queue steadily: it meets the spike calmly and gives an honest picture of what one person can and cannot do, which keeps output up without pretending the pressure away. It beats assuring your team leader you will cover everything, because that promises a pace one person is unlikely to sustain, and the resulting failure would surface late in the day when it is hardest to fix. It beats setting the reconciliation aside for the week, because that quietly shelves a commitment the finance office is relying on, based on an assumption about their timetable rather than a conversation. The least effective response is declaring the situation unmanageable in front of the rest of the team and doing only your normal workload: unlike over-promising, which at least throws effort at the problem, and unlike shelving the reconciliation, which at least keeps the enquiry queue moving, it converts pressure into public blame and refusal, helping nobody and souring the team on a difficult day. The principle: under a workload spike, stay composed. Assess honestly, tell people what is realistic, and keep working, rather than over-promising, quietly dropping commitments, or blaming.

5. Question 5 of 10

   You work for an agricultural contractor. Arriving at a farm to spray a crop you see that the field borders a stream and the wind has picked up well beyond the limit stated on the product label for spraying near water. The farmer is keen for it to be done today because he is away for a week from tomorrow. Your operations manager is contactable. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Spray the parts of the field away from the stream and leave the strip beside the water for another day, without contacting anyone.
   2. Spray the field as booked, keeping as far from the stream as the machine allows, since the farmer is away from tomorrow and there is no other chance this week.
   3. Wait a couple of hours to see whether the wind drops, and spray the whole field if it does, since the farmer needs it done before he goes away.
   4. Tell the farmer you cannot spray next to the stream in this wind, ring your operations manager to agree what can be done, and arrange another date or a different approach.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Tell the farmer you cannot spray next to the stream in this wind, ring your operations manager to agree what can be done, and arrange another date or a different approach.

   Least effective: B. Spray the field as booked, keeping as far from the stream as the machine allows, since the farmer is away from tomorrow and there is no other chance this week.

   A: Substitutes own judgement for the stakeholder's: a partial application changes the agronomy and the invoice, and deciding to split the job is the operations manager's call, not one to be taken alone in a field.

   B: Breaches a legal control on a known risk: the label limit near water exists to prevent contamination of a watercourse, and exceeding it to suit a diary is a deliberate breach with an environmental consequence that cannot be undone.

   C: Delays the decision: waiting is reasonable and nobody has been told, so if the wind does not drop the afternoon has gone and the farmer has still made no alternative arrangements.

   The most effective response is to tell the farmer you cannot spray next to the stream in this wind and ring your operations manager to agree what can be done: the label limit near water is not negotiable, he needs to know today because he leaves tomorrow, and your manager can decide whether another date, another operator or a different product is possible. Raising it immediately keeps every option open. It beats waiting a couple of hours to see whether the wind drops, because that spends the day without telling anyone and leaves him no time to arrange an alternative if it does not. It beats spraying the parts away from the stream and leaving the strip beside the water, because splitting the field changes the job and the invoice, which is not a decision to take alone at the gate. The least effective response is spraying as booked, keeping as far from the stream as the machine allows: it goes beyond the label limit beside a watercourse to suit a diary, a deliberate breach with consequences that cannot be reversed. That is worse than the other two, which mishandle the decision but do not contaminate a stream. The principle: when a legal or safety limit blocks the job, say so at once and get the alternatives decided by whoever owns them.

6. Question 6 of 10

   You work in the billing team of an energy supplier. A customer rings about a bill for £520 covering nine months, caused by the supplier failing to bill her since she moved in. She says that even the standard twelve-month plan would be more than she can manage each month. Company policy allows a repayment plan over twelve months for billing errors of this kind, and a longer plan needs a team leader’s approval. Your team leader is at her desk. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Apologise for the nine months of missed billing, set out the twelve- month plan, and ask your team leader now whether a longer plan can be approved given the supplier's error.
   2. Explain that the energy was used and the bill is correct, and set up the standard twelve-month repayment plan the policy allows.
   3. Tell her the bill stands and must be paid within the usual payment terms, since the energy was genuinely used and the debt is hers regardless of when it was billed.
   4. Reduce the bill by the amount covering the first three months, since the supplier's failure to bill caused the problem and the customer should not pay for the company's error.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Apologise for the nine months of missed billing, set out the twelve- month plan, and ask your team leader now whether a longer plan can be approved given the supplier's error.

   Least effective: C. Tell her the bill stands and must be paid within the usual payment terms, since the energy was genuinely used and the debt is hers regardless of when it was billed.

   B: Treats the policy floor as the ceiling: the twelve-month plan is offered as the only option when a longer one exists and a team leader who can approve it is at her desk, and she has not been asked.

   C: Ignores the customer's actual need: it demands full payment on normal terms for the supplier's own nine-month failure, and withholds a repayment plan the policy explicitly provides. That is a refusal of a remedy she is entitled to.

   D: Breaches confidentiality or process: writing off part of a bill is not a decision the billing team takes, and doing it unilaterally replaces an approval route with a personal judgement about fairness.

   The most effective response is to apologise for the nine months of missed billing, set out the twelve-month plan, and ask your team leader now whether a longer plan can be approved: the supplier caused this by not billing, the policy provides a repayment plan, and a longer one is available through a team leader sitting at her desk. That gives the customer the best the company actually allows. It beats explaining that the energy was used and setting up the standard twelve-month plan, because that treats it as the only option when a longer one exists and can be approved in minutes. It beats reducing the bill by the first three months, because that is not the billing team’s decision, however sympathetic the case. The least effective response is telling her the bill must be paid within the usual payment terms: it insists on normal terms for a debt created by the supplier’s own failure, and withholds a repayment plan the policy provides. That is worse than the standard plan, which at least offers one, and worse than the reduction, which at least tries to help. The principle: when your organisation caused the problem, find the most the policy allows and use the approval route for anything beyond it.

7. Question 7 of 10

   You work behind the counter of a bakery. A customer ordered a birthday cake for collection at noon today with ‘Happy Birthday Amelie’ piped on it. It is 11am and you notice the cake in the fridge reads ‘Happy Birthday Amelia’. The decorator is in until 1pm and could re-pipe the inscription in twenty minutes. The customer’s phone number is on the order. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Hand the cake over at noon as it is, since the difference is one letter, the customer may not notice and it is too late to change it now.
   2. Ring the customer, explain the spelling error, and ask whether she would like it corrected or would rather collect the cake as it is.
   3. Have the decorator re-pipe the inscription and say nothing about the error, since the cake will be correct by the time the customer collects it at noon.
   4. Ask the decorator to re-pipe the inscription now, and ring the customer to let her know it is being corrected and will be ready at noon as arranged.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Ask the decorator to re-pipe the inscription now, and ring the customer to let her know it is being corrected and will be ready at noon as arranged.

   Least effective: A. Hand the cake over at noon as it is, since the difference is one letter, the customer may not notice and it is too late to change it now.

   A: Ignores the customer's actual need: a misspelled name on a child's birthday cake is the whole point of the order, and it is not too late, since the decorator is in and there is an hour. Relying on her not noticing is concealment of a known defect.

   B: Delays the decision: it hands her a choice she does not need to make. The name is simply wrong, the decorator is in, and twenty minutes is available before noon.

   C: Hides the problem: the outcome is right and the customer is never told that a cake with her daughter's name misspelled nearly went out, so she cannot check the spelling on the order for next time.

   The most effective response is to ask the decorator to re-pipe the inscription now and ring the customer to say it is being corrected and will be ready at noon: the name is wrong, there is an hour and a decorator on site, so it can be put right and still be ready. Telling her means she is not surprised and can confirm the spelling. It beats ringing to ask whether she would like it corrected or would rather collect it as it is, because that puts a decision to her that does not need making, when the fix is already possible. It beats having it re-piped and saying nothing about the error, because that gets the cake right but leaves her unaware of a mistake that came from the order itself. The least effective response is handing it over as it is on the grounds that the difference is one letter she may not notice: it claims the change is too late when an hour and a decorator are available, and relies on a misspelled name on a child’s birthday cake going unremarked. That is worse than the other two, which both produce a correct cake. The principle: when there is time to put a mistake right, put it right and tell the customer you have.

8. Question 8 of 10

   You work in a hospital pharmacy stores team. Your colleague Amir is checking a large delivery against the order alone, a job normally done by two people so that quantities are double checked. He is halfway through and the fridge lines still need putting away within the hour. You have finished your own tasks. The stores supervisor is at a meeting until midday. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Carry on with your own area and leave Amir to finish, since he started the check and interrupting halfway through might cause him to lose his place.
   2. Put the fridge lines away yourself while Amir finishes the check, so that the cold chain is protected and he is not interrupted.
   3. Tell Amir you are free and join him on the check so it is properly double checked, then put the fridge lines away together.
   4. Ring the stores supervisor out of her meeting to ask whether the delivery check should be paused until two people are available.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Tell Amir you are free and join him on the check so it is properly double checked, then put the fridge lines away together.

   Least effective: A. Carry on with your own area and leave Amir to finish, since he started the check and interrupting halfway through might cause him to lose his place.

   A: Lets a two-person control run with one: a double-check that exists to catch quantity errors in medicines is being done by one person, and the reason for not helping is a worry about interrupting. Standing by a known control failure is the failure here.

   B: Splits the wrong task: it protects the fridge lines and leaves the single-person check running, so the control designed to catch quantity errors stays broken for the rest of the delivery.

   D: Escalates prematurely: you are the second person, you are free, and the answer she would give is obvious. Interrupting a meeting to be told to do what you can already do costs time the fridge lines do not have.

   The most effective response is to tell Amir you are free and join him on the check so it is properly double checked, then put the fridge lines away together: the check is a two-person control precisely because one person miscounts, you are free, and joining him restores the control for the rest of the delivery and still gets the fridge lines away in time. It beats putting the fridge lines away yourself while he finishes the check, because that protects the cold chain and leaves the quantity check still being done by one person, which is the more serious gap. It beats ringing the stores supervisor out of her meeting to ask whether the check should be paused, because you are the second person she would send, so the call only delays it. The least effective response is carrying on with your own area and leaving him to finish alone: it lets a medicines quantity check run without its double-check, and the reason offered is a concern about interrupting him. That is worse than the other two, which act on part of the problem. The principle: when a two-person control is running with one person and you are free, become the second person.

9. Question 9 of 10

   You work in a student accommodation office. Deposits are returned after an inspection, with deductions for damage. A colleague asks you to record a broken door in a room as pre-existing wear, explaining that the student who caused it is a friend of hers and cannot afford the deduction. The inspection report you completed records the door as damaged. Your accommodation manager is in the building. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Refuse and report your colleague to the accommodation manager for asking you to alter an inspection record in favour of a friend.
   2. Leave the report as it is but do not submit it yet, so that your colleague has time to find another way to help the student before the deduction is applied.
   3. Record the door as pre-existing wear as she asks, since the student is struggling financially and one door will not be noticed among the year's inspections.
   4. Tell your colleague you will not change the report, and suggest the student applies through the hardship or appeals route if she cannot afford the deduction.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Tell your colleague you will not change the report, and suggest the student applies through the hardship or appeals route if she cannot afford the deduction.

   Least effective: C. Record the door as pre-existing wear as she asks, since the student is struggling financially and one door will not be noticed among the year's inspections.

   A: Escalates prematurely: the request is wrong and she has not yet been told plainly that you will not do it. Reporting first turns a bad request into a disciplinary matter without the conversation that would probably end it.

   B: Delays the decision: holding back a completed inspection report to create room for a favour is a quieter version of the same request, and it puts the student's deposit process in limbo.

   C: Falsifies an inspection record: the report is the evidence on which another person's money is withheld or returned, and changing it as a favour is dishonesty that every other student pays for through the deposit scheme.

   The most effective response is to tell your colleague you will not change the report, and suggest the student applies through the hardship or appeals route: the report records what you found and will not be altered, and the student’s real problem, affording the deduction, has a legitimate route. Saying both settles the matter and offers a genuine answer. It beats refusing and reporting her to the accommodation manager for asking, because she has not yet been told plainly that you will not do it, and reporting first escalates something one sentence would resolve. It beats holding the finished report back so she has time to find another way to help, because sitting on it to make space for a favour is the same request in slower form. The least effective response is recording the door as pre- existing wear as she asks: it alters the evidence on which a deposit is decided, as a personal favour, and every other student funds the difference. That is worse than the other two, which handle it awkwardly but keep the record true. The principle: refuse to change the record, say so directly to the person who asked, and point at the legitimate route for the underlying problem.

10. Question 10 of 10

    You are a customer service assistant for a coach travel operator. Sorting a refund you notice that a driver’s tachograph records for a regular Friday service show consistently less rest than the schedule allows, across several weeks. You are not in operations and do not know the rules in detail, but the pattern looks wrong. The operations manager is on site. The Friday service runs tomorrow. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

    1. Look up the drivers' hours rules and check the records properly yourself first, so that you do not take an operations manager's time over something you have misread.
    2. Take what you have found to the operations manager today, show him the records, say you may have misread them, and let him judge before tomorrow's service.
    3. Leave it, since you are not in operations, you do not know the rules, and the records are presumably checked by people whose job it is to check them.
    4. Mention it to the driver next time you see him, since there may be a simple explanation and he would rather hear it from you than be reported over a misunderstanding.
    Show the answer

    Most effective: B. Take what you have found to the operations manager today, show him the records, say you may have misread them, and let him judge before tomorrow's service.

    Least effective: C. Leave it, since you are not in operations, you do not know the rules, and the records are presumably checked by people whose job it is to check them.

    A: Delays the decision: the caution is reasonable and the clock is not. The service runs tomorrow, and teaching yourself the rules first spends the time in which the person who already knows them could have looked.

    C: Fails to escalate a genuine risk: a pattern suggesting a driver is under-rested runs again tomorrow, and the reason for silence is that somebody else must have noticed. Not being certain is a reason to ask, not a reason to say nothing.

    D: Personalises the conflict: it makes a compliance question into a private word with the person it concerns, which is the one route guaranteed not to reach anybody who can check the records.

    The most effective response is to take what you have found to the operations manager today, show him the records and say you may have misread them: you do not need to be right, you need the right person to look, and he can settle in minutes what you cannot settle at all. Saying you may have misread it is honest and costs nothing; the service runs tomorrow, so today is when it has to happen. It beats looking up the drivers’ hours rules and checking the records properly yourself first, because that is a day’s work to reach a conclusion he can reach in five minutes, and tomorrow’s service does not wait for it. It beats mentioning it to the driver next time you see him, because that is the one route that never reaches anyone able to check the records, and it puts him on notice rather than getting the question answered. The least effective response is leaving it because you are not in operations and do not know the rules: it leaves a possible under-rested driver on tomorrow’s service, on the assumption that the checks someone else does must be working, which is exactly what the pattern calls into question. That is worse than the other two, which are slow or misdirected but still act. The principle: when you spot something that might be a safety problem, take it to the person qualified to judge it, before the next time it matters, and be honest that you might be wrong.