The difference is that in an interview context, there's almost always a defined endpoint; a narrow path that defines success. A 30-60 minute interview isn't the same thing as a 6 month project where you get a chance to meet with multiple stakeholders, digest the inputs, ask followups and so on.
This is why we see the rise of the "never ending interviews[0]". If you want an effective interview -- as an interviewer -- then understand what output you are measuring (like any good experiment) and then see if your subject can arrive at that outcome when given the context and 30-60 minutes.
Don't waste your own time disqualifying perfectly good candidates by playing games with ambiguity when you already know what you are looking for.
This is why we see the rise of the "never ending interviews[0]". If you want an effective interview -- as an interviewer -- then understand what output you are measuring (like any good experiment) and then see if your subject can arrive at that outcome when given the context and 30-60 minutes.
Don't waste your own time disqualifying perfectly good candidates by playing games with ambiguity when you already know what you are looking for.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210727-the-rise-of-ne...