Unstable case performance

This is actually very normal.

If you look closely, the pattern is usually the same: when the industry feels familiar, you are calm and everything flows. When it feels unfamiliar, you get tense, rush the start, and your performance drops. That is not a knowledge issue.

At this stage, doing more cases is not the answer. You already know how to case. What is unstable is how you behave under uncertainty.

A few things that help in practice:

• Every case is still about the same few things: who the customer is, how money is made, and what drives costs. Industry detail is secondary.
• The first 2 minutes matter more than the rest of the case. Slow them down. Clarify the objective, build a simple structure, and only then move forward.
• When you feel lost, say your assumptions out loud. Interviewers care about logic, not whether your guess is perfect.
• Practice unfamiliar industries on purpose, or even just practice case openings. That is where most people collapse.

You are not inconsistent because you are bad. You are inconsistent because your default approach is not solid enough yet. Fix the start, and the rest becomes much more stable.

Hi there,

This is very common and actually a sign you’re closer than you think. Inconsistent performance after 40 cases usually means the fundamentals are there but they’re not yet stable under pressure, especially when the industry feels unfamiliar.

What tends to go wrong isn’t knowledge but confidence and structure. When something feels new, people rush the start, lose clarity, and get stuck. The fix isn’t more volume but making your approach more robust. Slow down at the beginning, anchor on first principles, and remember that every case still comes down to customers, revenues, and costs.

At this stage, the biggest gains come from targeted feedback rather than doing more random cases. A few focused sessions can help you stabilize your performance so your strong cases become the norm. I can help you work through that if useful.

Best,
Evelina

40 cases with up-and-down results says you're matching patterns, not actually solving problems. When you recognize a pattern, you do well. When you don't, you fall apart. That's not ready.

The cases you crush are probably ones where you've seen something similar before. Your brain recognizes the shape and follows an approach you've practiced. The unfamiliar cases show you're not yet thinking from basics.

The fix isn't more cases. It's changing how you practice.

First, figure out what exactly breaks down.

Is it your structure? The math when you're nervous? Losing track in the middle? Getting thrown by a surprise question? "I do badly" isn't specific enough. Record yourself on a few hard cases and find the exact moment things fall apart.

Second, practice your weak spots on purpose.

If unfamiliar industries throw you off, do 10 cases in a row in industries you know nothing about. Force yourself to think out loud from basics: how does this business make money, what does it spend money on, who are the customers. Get comfortable not knowing and thinking through it anyway.

Third, build a process you trust.

Nerves usually come from feeling underprepared. That creates a cycle. You get anxious, your brain freezes, you perform worse, which confirms the anxiety.

The fix is having a reliable routine. When you know your opening approach, your structuring method, and what to do when you're stuck, you stop fearing the unknown.

My advice:

Before your real interviews, do 2-3 cases back-to-back under time pressure with tough practice partners. Build your ability to handle discomfort. The goal is to make your real interviews feel easier than your practice.

Hi there,

This is a very common feedback for candidates who have done enough cases to be able to reiterate a framework that they've seen, but not yet really build their structuring skills to be able to do it for problems that they haven't seen before. My suggestion is to not focus on doing more cases, but to spend more time on each case, and really think through deeply on:

1. What buckets would actually change my answer?

2. Are these buckets MECE?

3. What are the key analysis I'd do in each buckets?

I also suggest trying to work with a coach to get sharper direction on how to improve.

This is completely normal, and you are hitting the exact barrier that separates good casers from great casers. Hitting 40 cases means you’ve mastered the mechanics; the inconsistency stems from rigidity and anxiety when facing the unknown.

Here’s the reality of the recruiting machine: When an interviewer throws an unfamiliar industry or product at you, they are not testing your encyclopedic knowledge of that sector. They are testing your ability to handle ambiguity and your judgment in defining the problem. Your performance dips because in those moments, you drop your foundational structure (which should be universal, like a Profitability or Market Entry framework) to try and recall a specific industry model you don't possess.

To fix this unstable performance, you need to shift focus entirely from content to scoping. For your remaining prep time, practice only the first two to three minutes of a case. Your goal is to prove, in under 90 seconds, that you can land on a clear, adaptable, and universally structured framework, regardless of the prompt. This anchor radically reduces performance anxiety because you know your core logic is solid, allowing you to confidently ask clarifying questions that fill in the necessary industry-specific gaps. Stop worrying about getting the 'right' answer, and focus on delivering an absolutely bulletproof initial structure and prioritization.

Keep it tight. You’re extremely close to breaking through this plateau. All the best!

hey there :)

This is very normal, especially under pressure. Focus on mastering your core structure and mental templates so you can lean on them in any industry. For unfamiliar industries, quickly clarify key drivers at the start and talk through your assumptions out loud—, this helps manage nerves and shows logic even if you’re unsure. Doing 2–3 timed mock cases under interview conditions each week helps build consistency and confidence. Treat each case as practice, not a judgment.

best,
Alessa :)

Unfortunately the diagnostic is very clear: you lack structuring skills.

The case interview #1 job is to test if a candidate can structure through ambiguity. It's ideally tested when a candidate doesn't know that much about an industry or the situation they're trying to solve.

You are probably developing approaches / frameworks based on memorized buckets and trying to use creativity to solve "braintstorming" (qualitative) questions. You should be using objective-driven problem solving approaches. What a lot of people call MECE, but in reality is the ability to breakdown a problem into smaller ones.

Feel free to reach out for help if you would like to explore some coaching in order to improve in this area.

Get expert help.

Honestly, it's virtually impossible to diagnose it otherwise.

It sounds like you've put in the work and are now plateauing, and you don't know why.

You need a coach to run a baselining case with and to understand what is happening and how to change it. Doing this is critical. Otherwise, you might be running in circles for a while.

Feel free to reach out, and I can explain how I run these assessments with my candidates.

Best,
Cristian