I shared a situation from my finance background. I had to decide whether to recommend a significant investment in a startup with limited financial history.

The data available was a mix of projections and anecdotal evidence from industry buzz. I explained how I weighed the potential risks against the possible returns, even with holes in data, and ultimately recommended going ahead, driven by market trends and expert opinions.

The interviewer seemed engaged, nodding along, but then pressed on how I managed the inherent risk in that lack of solid data. I realize now that I didn't emphasize enough the contingency plans I proposed should the investment not perform.

I could sense that my answer lacked technicality, which might have left a gap in my credibility. Overall, I felt good about the core of my answer but wished I had highlighted more concrete metrics or tools I used to manage that risk.