In round 1 I spoke about a racist boss I stood up to. My feedback was I hit the inclusion part but not the leadership part because I didn’t involve other people etc. Do you think tweaking and retelling that story is a good idea or is it too risky of a story?

My point precisely. I would tell a good leadership story highlighting inclusion as opposed to telling an inclusion story with weak leadership examples. There's nothing wrong with using the same story for final round if you think it still passes the test. However, I do typically encourage candidates to have a fresh slate of stories ready so that they have more to choose from. You will occasionally get final round interviewers who ask a very specific question and candidates try to tailor their story accordingly as opposed to sharing one that is relevant.

Hi Ken, what did you mean by 'asking a very specific question'? Do you mean as follow up questions? I thought the main PEI question could be phrased however but as long as it's clear which PEI dimension they are referring to, you don't need to adapt the story? For eg, for entrepreneurial drive, if one person says share a time you achieved something difficult and another person says share something you achieved in a short period of time ..do I need to adapt the story on the fly for each case to accommodate the "short period of time" factor?

You are exactly right where especially with final round, I would encourage you to actually answer the question being asked as opposed to just 'assuming' the PEI dimension you think you are being asked. Your entrepreneurial drive example is exactly the right one where if your interviewer is asking more about "time constraint" and your story is purely about "creative initiative", you may be addressing the right PEI dimension but you have not really engaged in the actual interview question. It's one of those pet peeves for interviewers, when a candidate doesn't fully engage in the questions and isn't fully present in the interview.