The part that tripped me up was the 'steel-man their position' angle.
Choose a real, low-to-medium-stakes technical disagreement where you and a coworker held different positions, and narrate it as a story with a clear arc: context, tension, your effort to understand their perspective, the concrete actions you took, and the resolution. Emphasize how you separated the person from the problem, sought data or user impact to break the tie, and preserved the working relationship regardless of who 'won.'
Pro tip: Meta values impact and direct communication, so end by quantifying the outcome (e.g., latency reduced, launch unblocked) and explicitly state what you learned or would do differently — interviewers listen for self-awareness, not a flawless victory.
Briefly describe the project, your role, the coworker's role, and why the disagreement mattered — tie the stakes to user impact, timeline, or technical quality so the interviewer understands why it was worth resolving.
Explain their position fairly and specifically, including the legitimate concerns behind it (e.g., maintainability, risk, ownership). Demonstrate active listening by describing how you asked questions or restated their view before pushing back.
Walk through the steps you took: a 1:1 conversation, writing a short design doc, gathering data/benchmarks, proposing a small experiment, or escalating to a neutral decision-maker only after direct attempts failed.
State clearly what was decided and why, including whether you changed your mind or they changed theirs. Quantify the result for the project (e.g., performance, delivery) and describe the state of the relationship afterward.
Close with what you learned about resolving technical disagreements — e.g., defaulting to data, disagreeing and committing, or adjusting your communication style — and how you've applied it since.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.