FirstWho Logo
Book a Demo

Email Deliverability Specialist

Shapes enterprise deliverability architecture and external posture. Advises executives, steers major migrations, and builds resilient, reputation-first systems.

Interview rounds for this level

4 rounds210 min total

Competencies

7 domains41 attributes

Deliverability Fundamentals & Reputation

8 attributes in this domain
  • Sender reputation & mailbox provider policies
    Sets enterprise reputation strategy and negotiates policy interpretations with providers.
  • List acquisition vetting & hygiene controls
    Owns enterprise list governance strategy aligned with compliance and risk.
  • Blocklist monitoring & remediation playbooks
    Defines preventive controls and provider engagement strategies to avoid relistings.
  • Send cadence, throttling & segmentation guardrails
    Institutionalizes guardrails as policy with automated enforcement.
  • Engagement signals & reputation drivers analysis
    Sets KPI frameworks tying engagement to program-level reputation strategy.
  • Domain/IP strategy (shared vs dedicated, alignment)
    Owns enterprise identity architecture and long-term routing policy.
  • Feedback loop integration & complaint rate controls
    Formalizes complaint governance and provider partnerships to reduce complaints.
  • Sender identity setup (From, Return-Path, subdomain strategy)
    Defines enterprise identity standards across brands and regions.

Attributes

9 domains11 attributes

Role & Boundary Navigation

1 attributes in this domain

Interview questions for Principal level

Describe how you assess and monitor sender reputation across multiple mailbox providers, focusing on key metrics and signals.

6 minTechnicalMust have
Sender reputation & mailbox provider policies
What good answers reveal
  • Detailed knowledge of reputation metrics like complaint rates and bounce rates
  • Ability to interpret provider-specific policies and adapt strategies
  • Proactive monitoring and adjustment based on reputation trends
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Assuming all providers have identical policies
  • Focusing only on volume without considering engagement
Follow-up questions
  • How do you handle a sudden drop in reputation with a major provider?
  • What tools or methods do you use for continuous reputation tracking?

Imagine a new mailbox provider policy change threatens deliverability for a key brand. How do you lead the response?

7 minSituationalMust have
Sender reputation & mailbox provider policies
What good answers reveal
  • Strategic decision-making under pressure
  • Cross-functional coordination with legal and marketing teams
  • Implementation of rapid policy adaptations and testing
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Delaying action without assessing impact
  • Ignoring long-term reputation implications
Follow-up questions
  • What steps would you take to communicate this to stakeholders?
  • How do you measure the effectiveness of your response?

How do you design a system to proactively manage sender reputation across diverse regions and brands?

8 minSystemsMust have
Sender reputation & mailbox provider policies
What good answers reveal
  • Architectural thinking for scalable reputation management
  • Integration of feedback loops and monitoring tools
  • Consideration of regional policy variations and brand identity
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Over-reliance on single data sources
  • Failing to account for cultural differences in engagement
Follow-up questions
  • What key components are essential in this system?
  • How do you ensure it adapts to new providers or policies?

Explain your process for vetting new email list sources to ensure high deliverability and compliance.

5 minTechnicalMust have
List acquisition vetting & hygiene controls
What good answers reveal
  • Use of double opt-in and source verification methods
  • Analysis of list quality indicators like engagement history
  • Implementation of hygiene controls such as list scrubbing and validation
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Accepting lists without proper consent verification
  • Neglecting ongoing hygiene maintenance post-acquisition
Follow-up questions
  • How do you handle lists with mixed engagement levels?
  • What metrics do you prioritize in vetting decisions?

A marketing team wants to acquire a large, inexpensive list. How do you evaluate and decide on this opportunity?

6 minSituationalMust have
List acquisition vetting & hygiene controls
What good answers reveal
  • Risk assessment balancing cost and deliverability impact
  • Stakeholder communication on compliance and reputation risks
  • Data-driven decision-making with clear criteria
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Prioritizing short-term gains over long-term reputation
  • Failing to involve legal or compliance teams
Follow-up questions
  • What would you do if the list fails initial vetting?
  • How do you document and justify your decision?

Describe your approach to monitoring for blocklistings and the steps in your remediation playbook.

6 minTechnicalMust have
Blocklist monitoring & remediation playbooks
What good answers reveal
  • Use of automated tools for real-time blocklist monitoring
  • Structured remediation steps including root cause analysis and delisting requests
  • Preventive measures to avoid future listings
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Delaying response leading to prolonged deliverability issues
  • Incomplete root cause analysis resulting in recurrence
Follow-up questions
  • How do you prioritize which blocklists to address first?
  • What communication plan do you have for internal teams during an incident?

How do you calibrate your blocklist response strategies based on the severity and source of the listing?

5 minCalibrationMust have
Blocklist monitoring & remediation playbooks
What good answers reveal
  • Ability to assess impact and urgency of different blocklists
  • Adaptation of playbooks for high-priority vs. low-priority incidents
  • Use of historical data to refine response thresholds
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Treating all blocklists with the same level of urgency
  • Overlooking minor listings that could escalate
Follow-up questions
  • Can you give an example of a high-severity blocklist incident you managed?
  • How do you train your team on these calibrations?

How do you design and implement send cadence and throttling rules to optimize engagement and avoid spam traps?

6 minTechnicalMust have
Send cadence, throttling & segmentation guardrails
What good answers reveal
  • Technical implementation of rate limiting and segmentation logic
  • Use of engagement data to tailor send frequencies
  • Integration with ESPs or in-house systems for dynamic adjustments
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Setting uniform cadences without segment differentiation
  • Ignoring feedback loops that indicate fatigue or complaints
Follow-up questions
  • What factors influence your cadence decisions for new vs. engaged subscribers?
  • How do you test and validate throttling settings?

Outline a system for managing send cadence and segmentation across multiple brands with varying engagement levels.

7 minSystemsMust have
Send cadence, throttling & segmentation guardrails
What good answers reveal
  • Architectural design for centralized control with brand-specific rules
  • Automation of segmentation based on real-time engagement signals
  • Scalability considerations for high-volume, multi-region operations
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Creating overly complex systems that hinder agility
  • Failing to align cadence with subscriber expectations and behaviors
Follow-up questions
  • How do you handle conflicts between brand goals and deliverability best practices?
  • What monitoring is in place to detect cadence-related issues?

What methods do you use to analyze engagement signals and their impact on sender reputation?

5 minTechnicalMust have
Engagement signals & reputation drivers analysis
What good answers reveal
  • Proficiency in analyzing open rates, click-through rates, and spam complaints
  • Correlation of engagement metrics with reputation scores from providers
  • Use of statistical tools or models to predict reputation trends
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Relying solely on aggregate data without segment-level analysis
  • Misinterpreting correlation as causation in reputation drivers
Follow-up questions
  • How do you differentiate between meaningful engagement and noise?
  • What actions do you take based on declining engagement signals?

If engagement metrics drop significantly for a high-value segment, how do you diagnose and address the issue?

6 minSituationalMust have
Engagement signals & reputation drivers analysis
What good answers reveal
  • Systematic root cause analysis including content, timing, and list quality
  • Rapid implementation of A/B tests or segmentation adjustments
  • Communication with content and marketing teams for collaborative fixes
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Jumping to conclusions without comprehensive data review
  • Neglecting to monitor for unintended consequences of changes
Follow-up questions
  • What data sources do you prioritize in your diagnosis?
  • How do you prevent similar issues in the future?

Explain how you decide between shared and dedicated IPs for new domains, considering reputation and scalability.

6 minTechnicalMust have
Domain/IP strategy (shared vs dedicated, alignment)
What good answers reveal
  • Evaluation of volume, reputation history, and isolation needs
  • Technical setup for IP warming and reputation building
  • Alignment of IP strategy with domain authentication and branding
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Choosing dedicated IPs without sufficient volume to maintain reputation
  • Failing to segment traffic properly on shared IPs
Follow-up questions
  • What are the key risks of using shared IPs for sensitive campaigns?
  • How do you manage IP reputation over time?

Design a domain and IP strategy framework for a multi-brand organization expanding into new regions.

8 minSystemsMust have
Domain/IP strategy (shared vs dedicated, alignment)
What good answers reveal
  • Holistic planning for domain proliferation and IP allocation
  • Consideration of regional regulations and provider preferences
  • Scalable architecture supporting reputation isolation and management
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Underestimating the resource needs for dedicated IP management
  • Creating strategy that doesn't adapt to emerging threats or opportunities
Follow-up questions
  • How do you handle domain authentication across different setups?
  • What metrics guide your strategy adjustments over time?

How do you integrate feedback loops from mailbox providers to control complaint rates effectively?

5 minTechnicalMust have
Feedback loop integration & complaint rate controls
What good answers reveal
  • Technical integration of FBL data into suppression lists and analytics
  • Automation of complaint handling and subscriber communication
  • Use of complaint trends to refine segmentation and content strategies
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Ignoring FBL data due to integration complexities
  • Failing to update suppression lists in real-time
Follow-up questions
  • What steps do you take when complaint rates exceed thresholds?
  • How do you ensure FBL data is accurately parsed and acted upon?

How do you calibrate your response to fluctuating complaint rates across different campaigns and segments?

5 minCalibrationMust have
Feedback loop integration & complaint rate controls
What good answers reveal
  • Dynamic adjustment of suppression rules and send volumes based on complaint data
  • Balancing aggressive growth with conservative complaint management
  • Use of historical benchmarks to set and revise rate thresholds
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Applying uniform thresholds without segment-specific analysis
  • Overreacting to minor fluctuations and stifling campaign performance
Follow-up questions
  • What triggers an immediate campaign pause due to complaints?
  • How do you communicate rate changes to marketing teams?

Describe your process for setting up sender identity, including From address, Return-Path, and subdomain strategies.

6 minTechnicalMust have
Sender identity setup (From, Return-Path, subdomain strategy)
What good answers reveal
  • Expertise in configuring SPF, DKIM, and DMARC for authentication
  • Strategic use of subdomains to isolate reputation and branding
  • Alignment of Return-Path with bounce handling and feedback loops
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Misconfiguring authentication records leading to delivery failures
  • Overusing subdomains without clear reputation or operational rationale
Follow-up questions
  • How do you decide when to use a new subdomain?
  • What common pitfalls do you avoid in identity setup?

A rebranding requires changes to sender identity across all domains. How do you plan and execute this transition?

7 minSituationalMust have
Sender identity setup (From, Return-Path, subdomain strategy)
What good answers reveal
  • Project management for phased identity updates without disrupting deliverability
  • Coordination with IT, marketing, and legal teams for seamless implementation
  • Testing and validation of new setups to ensure authentication and reputation transfer
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Rushing changes without proper testing and communication
  • Failing to monitor deliverability metrics closely post-transition
Follow-up questions
  • How do you manage the reputation of old vs. new identities during transition?
  • What contingency plans do you have for issues arising from the change?

Attribute-Based Questions

Questions designed to assess key attributes for this role

Describe a time a junior team member challenged your deliverability architecture. How did you respond to their feedback and what changed as a result?

minBehavioralMust have
feedback_opennessTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Listened without defensiveness and asked clarifying questions
  • Acknowledged valid points and recorded next steps or adjustments
  • Followed up with the contributor and implemented or tracked change
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking about tool-specific processes or proprietary vendor names
  • Prompting for technical design details rather than feedback handling
Follow-up questions
  • How did you verify the feedback’s technical claims without taking control?
  • What did you do if you disagreed with their suggestion?
Scoring Rubric
HighWelcomed feedback, documented decisions, credited contributor, and adjusted architecture or roadmap where appropriate.
MediumListened and considered feedback but limited follow-through or credit to the contributor.
LowDismisses feedback, shows defensiveness, or describes no follow-up.

You receive critical feedback from legal and a regional deliverability lead on your identity strategy. How do you process and act on that feedback while retaining final architectural responsibility?

minSituationalMust have
feedback_opennessTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Creates a structured process to capture, triage, and test feedback
  • Balances domain expertise with stakeholder concerns before deciding
  • Communicates decision rationale and next steps transparently
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Soliciting legal or HR-specific advice
  • Assessing technical skill instead of receptivity to feedback
Follow-up questions
  • How would you document the decision for future reference?
  • What safeguards do you use to prevent recency bias?
Scoring Rubric
HighImplements a clear intake, evaluates objectively, tests where feasible, documents outcome, and communicates rationale.
MediumConsiders input but reacts ad hoc; limited documentation or follow-up.
LowIgnores or marginalizes stakeholder input or delegates decision entirely.

Rate this statement: 'I prefer receiving critical deliverability feedback in writing so I can respond after reflection.' Explain your rating and how it affects team dynamics.

minCalibrationMust have
feedback_opennessTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Preference balanced with situational flexibility
  • Ability to manage emotional response and maintain psychological safety
  • Plans for timely acknowledgement and follow-up
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking about confidentiality specifics or HR cases
  • Conflating channel preference with receptivity to critique
Follow-up questions
  • How do you ensure feedback given in private reaches wider teams if it affects decisions?
  • When would you insist on face-to-face feedback instead?
Scoring Rubric
HighBalances modes, sets clear expectations for acknowledgement and public follow-up when needed.
MediumHas a reasoned preference but lacks rules for when to change approach.
LowRigidly prefers one channel regardless of context and ignores team norms.

A core telemetry metric shows degradation after your policy change and an external consultant questions your interpretation. How do you incorporate that critique into your evidence review?

minTechnicalMust have
feedback_opennessTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Seeks reproducible data and alternative hypotheses
  • Runs targeted tests or re-analyses rather than reflexively defending
  • Documents outcome and updates monitoring or controls
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting vendor-specific diagnostic steps
  • Assessing technical competence rather than openness to review
Follow-up questions
  • What safeguards prevent confirmation bias during re-analysis?
  • How would you communicate a reversal or nuance to execs?
Scoring Rubric
HighPerforms structured re-analysis, runs controlled tests, records findings, and updates stakeholders.
MediumInvestigates but applies ad hoc fixes; limited documentation.
LowRejects consultant’s critique without investigation or blames measurement.

Tell me about a time you summarized a complex deliverability decision for a mixed audience. What structure did you use and why?

minBehavioralMust have
clear_communicationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Uses audience-aware structure (TL;DR, impact, ask)
  • Prioritizes key decision points and next actions
  • Checks for understanding and adapts language
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking for subjective judgments about people
  • Requiring examples tied to proprietary communications
Follow-up questions
  • How did you verify the audience understood the decision?
  • What did you avoid including and why?
Scoring Rubric
HighChooses concise structure, prioritizes impact and actions, and verifies comprehension.
MediumProvides structure but limited adaptation or verification of understanding.
LowProvides technical dump or no clear structure; no audience consideration.

You must announce a platform migration that will affect deliverability to brand CMOs across regions. What core message do you craft first and why?

minSituationalMust have
clear_communicationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Leads with impact to the business and risk mitigation
  • Specifies clear next steps and who will be contacted
  • Anticipates high-level concerns and addresses them succinctly
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting region-specific legal counsel
  • Conflating message drafting with persuasion strategies
Follow-up questions
  • What would you include in an executive summary vs a technical addendum?
  • How do you adjust for regulatory-sensitive regions?
Scoring Rubric
HighPrioritizes business impact, clear owner actions, and concise mitigation steps by audience.
MediumCovers impact and actions but misses audience-specific priorities.
LowFocuses on technical details or vague reassurances without clear actions.

Which is most important when announcing high-risk email policy changes: clarity, speed, or diplomacy? Rank and justify briefly.

minCalibrationMust have
clear_communicationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Ability to prioritize based on trade-offs
  • Awareness of downstream operational impact
  • Preference includes mitigation and iterative clarification
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Making the candidate choose illegal or discriminatory priorities
  • Evaluating rhetorical skill instead of clarity priorities
Follow-up questions
  • When would your ranking change?
  • How do you ensure the chosen priority is enforced?
Scoring Rubric
HighContextual ranking tied to stakeholder impact and concrete follow-through actions.
MediumReasoned ranking but lacks mechanisms for execution.
LowRigid ranking without context or mitigation for trade-offs.

Provide a short, verbal 'elevator' explanation (one sentence) of why DMARC enforcement impacts inbox placement. What key phrase do you use?

minTechnicalMust have
clear_communicationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Distills technical cause-effect into a single clear phrase
  • Avoids jargon while retaining correctness
  • Identifies the core mechanism linking policy to delivery
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Grading on deep technical completeness instead of clarity
  • Accepting technically incorrect simplifications
Follow-up questions
  • How would you expand that sentence for a legal audience?
  • Which jargon would you avoid and why?
Scoring Rubric
HighConcise, accurate, and uses intuitive cause-effect language understandable to non-experts.
MediumAccurate but slightly verbose or not audience-friendly.
LowUses jargon-heavy or misleading phrasing.

Describe a decision you made that was unpopular with senior stakeholders but you believed necessary for deliverability. How did you justify and stand by it?

minBehavioralMust have
professional_courageTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Identified clear risk/benefit and articulated rationale
  • Escalated appropriately and accepted accountability
  • Maintained relationships while enforcing necessary policy
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Encouraging disclosure of protected whistleblower situations
  • Assessing negotiation skill rather than courage
Follow-up questions
  • What resistance did you face and how did you address it?
  • Would you change anything in hindsight?
Scoring Rubric
HighMade principled decision, documented rationale, communicated transparently, and owned outcomes.
MediumMade the decision but lacked clear documentation or accountability.
LowAvoided difficult decisions or capitulated to pressure without record.

A commercial team pressures you to delay a deliverability fix until after a major campaign. You estimate significant inbox risk. What do you do?

minSituationalMust have
professional_courageTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Evaluates business trade-offs and presents options with clear consequences
  • Escalates when necessary and proposes mitigations
  • Takes a documented stance aligned with risk tolerance
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking about internal disciplinary actions
  • Focusing on persuasion technique over courage
Follow-up questions
  • How would you present the trade-offs to the C-suite?
  • When would you accept a compromise?
Scoring Rubric
HighProvides clear options, recommends course, documents decision and mitigation, and escalates if needed.
MediumNegotiates compromise but fails to escalate or record decision.
LowYields to pressure without documenting risk or alternatives.

You discover your architecture choice caused a subtle reputation risk. Do you: A) Quietly fix, B) Notify stakeholders, C) Publicly disclose impact? Choose and justify.

minCalibrationMust have
professional_courageTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Understands transparency vs operational risk trade-offs
  • Chooses proportionate disclosure and remediation
  • Considers governance and long-term trust
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Encouraging discussion of legal or regulatory violations
  • Conflating courage with publicity-seeking
Follow-up questions
  • What factors shift you between these options?
  • Who must be informed before public disclosure?
Scoring Rubric
HighSelects proportionate action with governance, stakeholder notification, and remediation plan.
MediumSelects a middle-ground but lacks governance rationale.
LowChooses secrecy or public alarm without proportionality.

A vendor recommends a change that simplifies operations but increases deliverability risk marginally. You must decide. Describe the steps you take to reach a decision.

minTechnicalMust have
professional_courageTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Seeks objective risk quantification and testable criteria
  • Involves cross-functional stakeholders and governance
  • Documents decision and rollback criteria
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting vendor contract details
  • Assessing vendor selection skills instead of courage in decision
Follow-up questions
  • What acceptance criteria would you require to proceed?
  • How do you set rollback thresholds?
Scoring Rubric
HighDefines tests, thresholds, governance sign-off, and rollback plan before proceeding.
MediumRequests some evaluation but lacks clear acceptance/rollback thresholds.
LowAccepts vendor recommendation without scrutiny or tests.

Give an example when a stakeholder’s concern about deliverability masked a different root problem. How did you discover the true issue?

minBehavioralMust have
active_listeningTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Asked clarifying questions and paraphrased to confirm understanding
  • Identified underlying needs rather than surface requests
  • Adjusted solution after surfacing the real problem
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Turning the question into a technical troubleshooting exercise
  • Assessing sympathy instead of listening behaviors
Follow-up questions
  • What specific questions did you ask to uncover the root cause?
  • How did you validate your interpretation with the stakeholder?
Scoring Rubric
HighUses structured probing, paraphrase, and validation to reveal and address root cause.
MediumAsks some questions but misses deeper stakeholder motives.
LowRelies on assumptions or jumps to solutions without inquiry.

During a cross-region meeting, two leads interrupt each other and present conflicting symptoms. How do you extract accurate information without escalating tension?

minSituationalMust have
active_listeningTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Uses neutral paraphrase and structured turn-taking
  • Asks single-thread clarifying questions and summarizes answers
  • Ensures all voices are heard and decisions are based on synthesized facts
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting role-play or scheduling details
  • Assessing conflict mediation over listening skill
Follow-up questions
  • How do you handle contradictory data claims?
  • When do you pause the meeting for asynchronous follow-up?
Scoring Rubric
HighEstablishes turn-taking, clarifies each claim, synthesizes evidence, and documents agreed facts.
MediumMediates but may miss key details or allow bias.
LowLets interruptions continue or forces quick decision without clarity.

You hear an angry regional ops lead blaming deliverability for revenue loss. Which first step best demonstrates active listening: A) Defend metrics, B) Ask clarifying consequences, C) Schedule follow-up workshop?

minCalibrationMust have
active_listeningTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Chooses immediate clarifying questions to understand specifics
  • Avoids defensive posture and seeks factual grounding
  • Plans appropriate next steps based on initial understanding
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Focusing on conflict resolution techniques rather than listening
  • Requesting specific wording scripts to use verbatim
Follow-up questions
  • Explain why you chose that step over the others.
  • What words or tone do you use to de-escalate?
Scoring Rubric
HighAsks focused clarifying questions now, then plans broader remediation if needed.
MediumSchedules follow-up but fails to extract immediate clarifying info.
LowDefensive response or ignores need to clarify specifics.

You receive conflicting telemetry descriptions from two engineers. How do you confirm you correctly understand each report before deciding on next tests?

minTechnicalMust have
active_listeningTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Requests concrete data excerpts and restates conclusions to confirm
  • Defines acceptance criteria for data statements
  • Schedules narrow tests to resolve interpretive differences
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking for proprietary log excerpts
  • Conflating technical troubleshooting competence with listening
Follow-up questions
  • How would you document agreed interpretations?
  • When do you escalate unresolved discrepancies?
Scoring Rubric
HighParaphrases, requests sample data, defines test to resolve, and documents the agreed view.
MediumRequests data but lacks confirmatory restatement or criteria.
LowChooses one engineer’s version without verification.

Share an example when your strongly held hypothesis on reputation was wrong. How did you acknowledge the error and correct course?

minBehavioralMust have
intellectual_humilityTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Admits mistake clearly and attributes cause objectively
  • Revokes or updates prior guidance and communicates reasons
  • Implements changes to prevent repetition
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking about legal liability or blame assignments
  • Evaluating technical correctness over admission and remediation
Follow-up questions
  • How did you communicate the reversal to those impacted?
  • What process change resulted from the error?
Scoring Rubric
HighOwns error, explains evidence, corrects guidance, and creates preventive measures.
MediumAcknowledges mistake but minimizes responsibility or remediation.
LowAvoids admitting error or blames others/measurement.

You have high confidence in a new authentication approach but external research suggests unknown risks. What do you do to balance confidence with new evidence?

minSituationalMust have
intellectual_humilityTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Seeks to replicate findings and conducts targeted risk tests
  • Engages peers for critique and delays irreversible changes
  • Updates risk register and communicates uncertainty transparently
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting competitive intelligence or proprietary research
  • Turning into a pure technical validation question
Follow-up questions
  • What criteria make you change a rollout schedule?
  • How do you record uncertainty for future reference?
Scoring Rubric
HighPerforms structured replication, engages peers, adjusts timelines and documentation based on findings.
MediumInvestigates but keeps biased confirmation focus.
LowIgnores external evidence or doubles down without review.

You must present uncertain deliverability forecasts. Which phrase best reflects intellectual humility: 'We're certain,' 'This is our best estimate with caveats,' or 'We lack data'?

minCalibrationMust have
intellectual_humilityTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Prefers calibrated language that conveys confidence level and limits
  • Avoids absolutes while offering actionable guidance
  • Provides plan to reduce uncertainty
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Prompting for overly technical uncertainty metrics
  • Assessing risk tolerance instead of humility
Follow-up questions
  • How do you quantify or communicate the caveats?
  • When is 'we lack data' appropriate for execs?
Scoring Rubric
HighCommunicates best estimate with caveats and a clear plan to reduce uncertainty.
MediumUses cautious phrasing but gives little mitigation path.
LowChooses absolute phrasing or abdicates responsibility by saying 'we lack data' without plan.

A long-standing reputation rule you authored is questioned by new data. How do you design an experiment to test whether to retire the rule?

minTechnicalMust have
intellectual_humilityTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Defines hypothesis, metrics, control group, and success thresholds
  • Plans to monitor secondary effects and rollback criteria
  • Includes peer review and documentation
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Drilling into proprietary experimental tooling
  • Confounding experiment design with pure statistical instruction
Follow-up questions
  • What sample size or timeframe considerations matter here?
  • How do you guard against overfitting to short-term noise?
Scoring Rubric
HighSpecifies hypothesis, metrics, controls, thresholds, monitoring, and governance for decision.
MediumSuggests experiment but lacks thorough controls or rollback plan.
LowProposes anecdotal checks or vague tests without clear metrics.

Describe when you modified a deliverability communication or policy because regional norms or regulatory contexts differed. What changed and why?

minBehavioralMust have
cultural_empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Recognizes cultural or regulatory differences and adapts appropriately
  • Avoids one-size-fits-all messaging or enforcement
  • Engages local stakeholders to co-create acceptable approaches
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking about nationality or personal background
  • Evaluating regulatory knowledge instead of cultural adaptation
Follow-up questions
  • How did you verify adaptations respected local norms?
  • What authority boundaries did you observe?
Scoring Rubric
HighCo-creates regionally appropriate approaches with local input and documents boundaries.
MediumAdapts superficially but without local stakeholder engagement.
LowApplies single global approach or shows cultural insensitivity.

A template explanation acceptable in one region reads as dismissive in another. How do you identify problematic phrasing and revise it quickly for multiregional release?

minSituationalMust have
cultural_empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Uses local review and simple language checks
  • Prioritizes harm-minimizing alternatives and tracks regional variants
  • Implements rapid review loops with local SMEs
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting details of local laws or confidential regional policies
  • Conflating cultural empathy with translation accuracy only
Follow-up questions
  • What criteria determine when a regional variant is required?
  • How do you avoid fragmentation across many locales?
Scoring Rubric
HighImplements rapid local SME review, scoring criteria for variants, and scalable template management.
MediumSeeks local review but lacks scalable process.
LowApplies a single fix without local input or ignores nuance.

When is it acceptable to enforce a single global deliverability policy versus allowing regional exceptions? Provide one concise criterion.

minCalibrationMust have
cultural_empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Applies clear business or compliance-based thresholds
  • Balances operational simplicity with local risk mitigation
  • Specifies governance for exceptions
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking for region-specific legal advice
  • Assessing cultural stereotypes rather than decision criteria
Follow-up questions
  • Who should approve regional exceptions?
  • How often should exceptions be reviewed?
Scoring Rubric
HighStates explicit, defensible criterion (e.g., legal/regulatory conflict) and defined approval/review process.
MediumProvides reasonable criteria but lacks governance detail.
LowOffers vague or ad hoc criteria that enable bias.

Different regions report different bounce patterns due to local ISPs. How would you set up reporting to surface culturally or regionally specific issues without biasing global metrics?

minTechnicalMust have
cultural_empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Designs regional segmentation and normalization for fair comparison
  • Includes per-region baselines and anomaly detection
  • Ensures reporting highlights local action items without skewing global KPIs
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting access to regional confidential data
  • Conflating data segmentation with cultural competency
Follow-up questions
  • What normalization factors would you use?
  • How do you prevent small-region noise from triggering global alarms?
Scoring Rubric
HighDefines per-region baselines, normalization, and governance to separate local issues from global trends.
MediumSegments data but lacks clear normalization or thresholds.
LowSuggests a one-size global metric or ignores normalization.

Recall when a stakeholder was distraught about campaign impact. How did you acknowledge their emotions and still move toward a technical solution?

minBehavioralMust have
empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Validates feelings before moving to problem-solving
  • Balances emotional support with concrete next steps
  • Follows up to ensure stakeholder felt heard
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking for medical or mental health details
  • Confounding empathy with negotiation or persuasion
Follow-up questions
  • What language did you use to acknowledge emotions?
  • How did you transition from empathy to action?
Scoring Rubric
HighGenuinely validates emotions, outlines clear actions, and ensures follow-up.
MediumAcknowledges feelings but provides limited follow-through.
LowMinimizes emotions or jumps to technical fixes without acknowledgment.

A team member is defensive about a missed SLA. How do you respond to acknowledge their feelings while resolving the SLA cause?

minSituationalMust have
empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Uses validating statements and asks open, nonjudgmental questions
  • Separates personal feelings from system failures
  • Creates a safe space for root-cause analysis
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Probing into private personal issues
  • Confusing empathy with leniency on performance
Follow-up questions
  • When do you involve HR or formal coaching?
  • How do you document the conversation?
Scoring Rubric
HighValidates, probes for system causes, and sets clear remediation while supporting the person.
MediumShows some empathy but lacks structure to resolve the issue.
LowResponds punitively or ignores emotional state.

Which approach best balances empathy and accountability: immediate support then review, immediate disciplinary review, or public troubleshooting session? Choose and justify.

minCalibrationMust have
empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Prioritizes private support before public remediation
  • Balances compassion with clear accountability
  • Prefers proportionate and timely review mechanisms
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Asking for examples involving protected characteristics
  • Evaluating empathy through outcome severity only
Follow-up questions
  • How do you ensure fairness across teams?
  • When is public discussion appropriate?
Scoring Rubric
HighChooses private support immediately, followed by transparent, fair review and remediation.
MediumSupports but delays accountability or vice versa.
LowChooses punitive or public shaming approaches.

A partner ops lead is overwhelmed by a sudden blocklist issue. What short written checklist or first steps do you send that show empathy and reduce cognitive load?

minTechnicalMust have
empathyTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Provides concise, prioritized, low-cognitive-load steps
  • Acknowledges stress and offers help channels
  • Avoids jargon and includes clear next contacts
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requesting template sharing that may be proprietary
  • Turning empathy assessment into technical competence check
Follow-up questions
  • How do you adapt the checklist for non-technical stakeholders?
  • When would you follow up synchronously?
Scoring Rubric
HighSends short prioritized steps, acknowledges stress, and offers direct support channels.
MediumSends helpful steps but misses empathy cues or clear contact points.
LowSends long, technical instructions that increase burden.

Describe a time you explained a complex deliverability root cause to a non-technical executive. How did you structure the explanation to ensure understanding?

minBehavioralMust have
clarity_in_explanationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Uses analogy or simple causal chains tailored to the audience
  • Prioritizes impact and decisions rather than technical minutiae
  • Confirms understanding and documents takeaways
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Prompting for proprietary executive communications
  • Assessing technical depth rather than explanatory clarity
Follow-up questions
  • What analogy or mental model did you use and why?
  • How did you check for comprehension?
Scoring Rubric
HighChooses apt analogy, focuses on impact and choices, and verifies comprehension.
MediumSimplifies but misses audience-specific framing or check-ins.
LowOverloads with technical details or fails to confirm understanding.

You must brief a global board on why deliverability dipped and your remediation plan within five minutes. What three sentences do you use?

minSituationalMust have
clarity_in_explanationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Prioritizes concise problem statement, impact, and remediation with owners
  • Avoids jargon and focuses on measurable outcomes
  • Frames next steps and monitoring clearly
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Requiring verbatim speech examples tied to internal meetings
  • Judging rhetorical flair over clarity and substance
Follow-up questions
  • Which metric do you place first and why?
  • How do you handle follow-up detailed questions?
Scoring Rubric
HighDelivers concise impact-led sentences with owners and measurable remediation steps.
MediumStates problem and plan but lacks specific measurable outcomes.
LowProvides vague or technical sentences without clear impact or ownership.

Which best practice most improves clarity for non-technical stakeholders: use analogies, include raw data, or provide step-by-step technical logs? Choose one and justify.

minCalibrationMust have
clarity_in_explanationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Selects audience-appropriate practice (often analogies) with justification
  • Understands when data or logs are necessary as appendices
  • Prioritizes comprehension and actionability
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Forcing a choice that depends on audience context without allowing nuance
  • Assessing storytelling skill only
Follow-up questions
  • When would raw data be preferred instead?
  • How do you verify your analogy doesn’t mislead?
Scoring Rubric
HighChooses analogy with plan for appendices of data and checks to avoid misleading simplification.
MediumChooses analogy but lacks caution about oversimplification.
LowChooses data/logs for non-technical audiences without justification.

Explain in one brief paragraph the causal link between sender reputation signals and mailbox filtering, aimed at product managers. What key points do you include?

minTechnicalMust have
clarity_in_explanationTalent
What good answers reveal
  • Identifies causal linkages (signals → scoring → filtering) succinctly
  • Highlights practical implications for product decisions
  • Avoids low-level protocol jargon but stays accurate
Pitfalls to avoid
  • Grades on length instead of clarity and relevance
  • Asking for proprietary KPI formulas
Follow-up questions
  • Which implication matters most to product roadmap decisions?
  • How would you turn this into a KPI?
Scoring Rubric
HighSuccinct causal chain with clear product implications and action-oriented framing.
MediumAccurate but verbose or not directly actionable for product managers.
LowProvides protocol-heavy or inaccurate explanation.

Emergent Factors

Post-cookie email volume surge strains reputation controls

As third‑party cookies deprecate, brands push more email, lifting frequency and list growth. Deliverability risk rises via complaints, throttling, and blocks unless cadence, segmentation, and warm-up are tightened.

ESP replatforming wave increases cutover risk

Cost, privacy, and data residency push ESP migrations. Specialists must re-establish auth, warm new IPs/domains, and manage dual-delivery, with heightened risk of blocks and revenue dips during transition.

AI inbox summarization raises engagement thresholds

Mailbox providers increasingly summarize and prioritize emails. Lower engagement content sees reduced exposure and more throttling, requiring higher utility, targeting, and annotation strategies.

Progression Framework

This table shows how competencies evolve across experience levels. Each cell shows competency at that level.

Deliverability Fundamentals & Reputation

8 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
Sender reputation & mailbox provider policies

Explains basic reputation factors and checks provider guidelines before changes.

Translates provider policies into actionable sending rules and monitors reputation indicators.

Diagnoses reputation dips across providers and leads corrective plans.

List acquisition vetting & hygiene controls

Runs routine list hygiene jobs and suppresses risky contacts.

Implements acquisition checks and periodic list audits with defined thresholds.

Designs hygiene policies tied to engagement and risk signals.

Blocklist monitoring & remediation playbooks

Monitors alerts and follows remediation steps for low-severity listings.

Correlates listings with sending behavior and drafts delisting cases.

Leads cross-functional remediation and root cause elimination.

Send cadence, throttling & segmentation guardrails

Applies defined cadence and throttling rules for sends.

Tunes rules per provider and segment based on observed signals.

Designs adaptive guardrails responsive to real-time deliverability indicators.

Engagement signals & reputation drivers analysis

Reports basic open/click/complaint trends.

Segments signals by provider and audience for insights.

Builds multi-signal models to explain reputation shifts.

Domain/IP strategy (shared vs dedicated, alignment)

Identifies sending identities and IP pools used per program.

Recommends pool/domain allocation based on risk and volume.

Designs multi-domain and IP pool strategies with clear routing rules.

Feedback loop integration & complaint rate controls

Monitors FBL notifications and applies basic suppressions.

Automates complaint ingestion to drive near-real-time suppression.

Designs complaint thresholds and upstream prevention controls.

Sender identity setup (From, Return-Path, subdomain strategy)

Identifies headers and validates identity configuration.

Implements subdomain patterns for program separation.

Optimizes identity strategy for alignment and deliverability outcomes.

Tools, Workflows & Enablement

6 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
Deliverability alerting & dashboards

Uses dashboards and acknowledges alerts.

Builds dashboards and tunes alert thresholds.

Designs monitoring strategy and cross-signal correlation.

Runbooks, escalation & on-call workflow

Follows runbooks and records actions.

Improves runbooks and clarifies escalation triggers.

Owns on-call process and post-incident updates.

Cross-functional training & enablement content

Delivers established training content.

Creates role-specific modules and updates content with new policies.

Builds curricula tied to common failure modes and metrics.

Case management & provider escalation interfaces

Files cases with sufficient logs and context.

Prioritizes and drives cases to resolution with clear updates.

Optimizes case templates and SLAs with providers.

Knowledge base and documentation lifecycle

Keeps docs updated during changes.

Establishes review cadences and owners.

Defines documentation standards and templates.

Tooling access, roles and administration

Requests and validates correct access.

Manages role mappings and audits access.

Designs least-privilege role structures and reviews.

Architecture & Systems for Email Platform

6 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
MTA sending policies, rate limiting & concurrency

Executes predefined policy changes.

Tunes per-provider limits based on telemetry.

Designs policy frameworks that auto-adapt to conditions.

Bounce taxonomy, parsing & routing

Uses taxonomy to tag bounces correctly.

Implements parsing rules and routes to systems.

Improves taxonomy and false-positive handling.

Event-driven send contracts and idempotency

Follows existing contract specs.

Implements versioned contracts and idempotent handlers.

Designs evolvable schemas and retry strategies.

Traffic segmentation and IP/pool routing orchestration

Applies routing rules per playbook.

Optimizes routes using telemetry feedback.

Designs adaptive routing and rollback strategies.

Bounce/complaint service reliability & SLOs

Monitors service health dashboards.

Defines alerts and remediates incidents to meet SLOs.

Sets SLOs and capacity plans for peak events.

Inbound reply handling and loop detection service

Monitors inbound processing queues and resolves simple failures.

Implements parsing and loop detection rules.

Optimizes routing and reduces false positives in detection.

Authentication, Security & Compliance

5 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
SPF/DKIM configuration & key management

Validates SPF/DKIM records and fixes basic issues.

Implements key rotation and alignment checks.

Designs scalable key management and monitoring.

DMARC alignment, policy and reporting analysis

Checks alignment status and reads aggregate reports.

Tunes policy from none to quarantine/reject safely.

Resolves alignment exceptions across services and brands.

TLS and ARC transport/authentication hygiene

Verifies TLS in transit and understands basic ciphers.

Configures TLS policies and evaluates ARC needs.

Optimizes transport security and ARC deployment across flows.

BIMI/VMC setup and validation

Publishes BIMI record and validates rendering.

Coordinates VMC procurement and renewal.

Troubleshoots provider-specific BIMI behaviors.

Consent, unsubscribe and regulatory compliance

Ensures visible unsubscribe and honors requests.

Implements consent checks and logging in workflows.

Designs consent governance across systems and regions.

Interfaces, Data & Integration Analytics

5 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
Link/tracking standards and tagging (UTM, params)

Applies defined tags and verifies links.

Audits campaigns for tagging completeness and correctness.

Defines tagging standards and exceptions.

Event schema and delivery/engagement data contracts

Consumes events per spec.

Implements schema changes and versioned contracts.

Designs forward/backward compatible schemas.

Trigger QA, suppression and dependency checks

Runs predefined QA checklists.

Automates checks for suppressions and dependencies.

Designs QA frameworks for event-triggered sends.

Cohort/attribution analysis for deliverability impact

Builds basic cohort reports.

Connects deliverability KPIs with conversion outcomes.

Designs experiments to isolate deliverability effects.

ETL/warehousing for email telemetry

Runs and monitors scheduled jobs.

Implements schema mapping and data quality checks.

Designs scalable ETL with SLAs and lineage.

Quality, Testing & Experimentation

5 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
Seedlist and inbox placement testing coverage

Runs seed tests and records results.

Optimizes seed coverage and interprets trends.

Designs provider/segment coverage strategies and actions.

Pre-send content/spam filter assessment

Runs spam checks and fixes common issues.

Correlates content elements with placement outcomes.

Defines content guardrails and automated linting.

Experiment design, MDE and analysis for email

Runs A/B tests using templates.

Calculates sample sizes and MDE; analyzes outcomes.

Designs multivariate tests and controls for confounders.

IP/domain warm-up planning and execution

Executes warm-up schedules and monitors basics.

Adjusts ramps by provider and engagement.

Designs adaptive warm-up frameworks and rollback criteria.

Performance tests for time-critical sends

Runs load tests and records metrics.

Tunes configs to hit throughput and latency targets.

Designs performance test suites and SLOs.

Operational Excellence & Governance

6 competencies

CompetencyJuniorMidSenior
Taxonomy, naming and program classification

Applies taxonomy to new assets.

Refines taxonomy and aligns stakeholders.

Designs extensible taxonomies and migration plans.

Capacity planning, throughput and SLOs

Tracks throughput vs plan.

Builds capacity forecasts and mitigations.

Defines SLOs and scaling strategies for peak events.

Executive reporting and program narrative

Prepares recurring KPI reports.

Highlights drivers and recommended actions.

Builds narratives tying deliverability to business impact.

Provider relationship management & escalations

Supports data gathering for escalations.

Runs provider cases and updates stakeholders.

Owns provider relationships and escalation success metrics.

Cross-channel supply signal orchestration

Shares basic signals across teams.

Implements rules to shift volume based on risk.

Designs orchestration logic using shared signals.

Incident management, PIRs & retros

Logs incidents and participates in PIRs.

Leads PIRs and tracks action items.

Identifies systemic fixes and validates effectiveness.

Progression shows increasing complexity and scope