MindFuddleScoring Rubric

How you're evaluated

Scoring Rubric

Every submission is scored across five criteria on a 1–4 scale. Each criterion is weighted by importance to produce a final score out of 100.

Weight Distribution

Problem Framing25%

User Understanding20%

Product Thinking20%

Interaction / UX Design20%

Reasoning & Collaboration15%

Problem Framing

25%

How well the candidate defines the problem, context, scope, and constraints before jumping to solutions.

1Weak

·Jumps into screens without defining the problem
·Asks few or irrelevant clarifying questions
·Ignores constraints or key assumptions
·Scope is undefined or far too broad

2Emerging

·Asks some clarifying questions
·Shows partial understanding of the problem
·Identifies some constraints but misses others
·Scope is somewhat unclear or reactive

3Strong

·Clarifies the challenge before solving
·Defines the problem clearly and specifically
·Identifies key assumptions and constraints
·Sets a reasonable scope and MVP boundary

4Excellent

·Quickly uncovers the real problem behind the prompt
·Frames the challenge in a focused, strategic way
·Balances ambiguity, constraints, and outcomes expertly
·Establishes a clear path for the rest of the exercise

User Understanding

20%

How well the candidate defines who they are designing for, their needs, and why it matters.

1Weak

·User is vague or entirely generic
·Little evidence of pain point understanding
·Designs based on personal opinion rather than user insight

2Emerging

·Identifies a target user but shallowly
·Mentions pain points without meaningful depth
·User thinking is present but not consistently applied

3Strong

·Clearly defines the primary user
·Articulates plausible needs and pain points
·Uses user understanding to justify design choices

4Excellent

·Builds a sharp, credible user model quickly
·Recognises nuances across user types or contexts
·Uses user insight consistently to shape priorities and flows

Product Thinking

20%

How well the candidate connects user needs, business goals, prioritisation, and success metrics.

1Weak

·Focuses only on features with no strategic framing
·Little awareness of business goals or tradeoffs
·No clear prioritisation rationale

2Emerging

·Some product thinking is present
·Mentions KPIs, impact, or tradeoffs at a surface level
·Prioritisation is somewhat reactive

3Strong

·Connects user and business goals effectively
·Prioritises appropriately for MVP
·Makes sensible tradeoffs and discusses success metrics

4Excellent

·Demonstrates strong product judgment throughout
·Balances desirability, feasibility, and viability
·Makes smart prioritisation calls under ambiguity
·Defines clear value and measurable success criteria

Interaction / UX Design

20%

How well the candidate turns the problem into coherent flows and screens. Scored on structure, prioritisation, UX logic, clarity of flows, decision rationale, and visual clarity, not polish.

Not scored on:

—Polished visual design or branding
—Production-level UI or component fidelity
—A fully resolved high-fidelity mockup

1Weak

·Structure is absent or incoherent
·Screens or flows don't match the problem
·No clear prioritisation visible
·Interactions feel arbitrary or unexplained
·Artefact is hard to read or interpret

2Emerging

·Some relevant screens or flows exist
·Structure is present but rough
·Key states or transitions are missing
·Prioritisation is unclear
·Artefact is understandable with effort

3Strong

·Key screens and flows are identified correctly
·Structure is logical and appropriate to the problem
·Good prioritisation — shows what matters
·Interactions are clear and usable
·Artefact is readable and well organised

4Excellent

·Highly coherent end-to-end flow
·Excellent prioritisation — shows what matters and why
·Anticipates edge cases and important states
·Interaction model is simple, effective, and goal-driven
·Artefact is immediately legible with clear visual hierarchy

Reasoning & Collaboration

15%

How clearly the candidate makes their thinking visible in the interview chat, and how effectively they engage with the interviewer throughout the session.

1Weak

·Gives short answers without rationale
·Jumps to solutions without explanation
·Ignores or underuses interviewer input
·Leaves key decisions unexplained

2Emerging

·Some reasoning is visible, but inconsistently
·Responds to prompts but doesn't build a collaborative thread
·Explanations are present but shallow or fragmented

3Strong

·Makes thinking easy to follow
·Explains decisions and assumptions clearly
·Uses interviewer input effectively
·Shows structured back-and-forth problem solving

4Excellent

·Creates a highly clear reasoning trail throughout the chat
·Uses concise but strong explanations at each step
·Collaborates actively and adapts fluidly
·Balances speed, structure, and thoughtful tradeoff discussion

How the final score is calculated

Each criterion is scored 1–4. Scores are multiplied by their weight, summed, then scaled to a 0–100 range. A score of 1 across all criteria = 0. A score of 4 across all = 100. This reflects both quality and where effort was spent.