Our case interview rubric, explained

We've had a few people reach out asking how the CaseChamp scoring grid is put together, so I thought I'd lay it out here. The rubric isn't arbitrary—it's a shorthand for the criteria Bain, McKinsey, and BCG have relied on for years. Place our sheet beside a partner's post-interview notes and you'll notice many of the same headings.

1. The three dimensions consultants are ultimately judged on

Whether it's called a "performance review," "development discussion," or "up-or-out checkpoint," consulting feedback nearly always collapses into three buckets:

1. Problem Solving: Does your thinking steer the work in a useful direction?

2. Client Impact: Will decision-makers trust you enough to act on your advice?

3. Team Contribution: Are you someone colleagues can lean on when deadlines tighten?

2. Turning those dimensions into a 25-minute case

A case interview condenses a month of project life into half an hour, so it zooms in on three repeat moves:

1. Frame the question. Pin down what the client is really asking.

2. Validate the idea. Run the numbers, test the assumptions.

3. Explain the result. Share a clear, usable conclusion.

Every clarifying prompt, data exhibit, or "anything else you'd consider?" moment is probing one of these moves.

3. The CaseChamp rubric, in detail

Skill	Weight	What this measures
Problem-Solving & Analytical Thinking (50 pts)
Problem Structuring	2×	Ability to build a MECE, client-specific framework and adjust it unprompted when new facts surface.
Synthesis & Insight Generation	2×	Skill in blending quantitative and qualitative insight into a crisp takeaway at each pivot.
Creativity & Novel Thinking	2×	Capacity to propose non-obvious drivers or analogies proactively, moving beyond stock answers.
Contextualisation & Real-World Examples	2×	Use of real-life context and/or industry examples that shape assumptions or create analogies without prompting.
Prioritisation & Focus	1×	Discipline to focus on the largest value drivers and park low-impact topics.
Adaptability (Data & Feedback)	1×	Willingness to pivot approach on the fly when data or feedback conflict with the plan.
Execution & Rigor (35 pts)
Numerical Comfort & Accuracy	2×	Comfort setting up calculations, labelling units, and sanity-checking results independently.
Logical Rigor	2×	Clear chain from premise to conclusion with explicit assumptions and no leaps.
Data-Driven Decision-Making	2×	Habit of comparing options quantitatively and threading numeric targets through recommendations.
Error Awareness & Self-Correction	1×	Ability to spot and fix errors without external prompting.
Communication & Presence (15 pts)
Clarity & Speech Quality	1×	Professional language, clear signposts, minimal fillers throughout the discussion.
Confidence & Executive Presence	1×	Steady, confident delivery suited to executive audiences.
Engagement, Active Listening & Question Quality	1×	Quality of clarifying questions and active listening that turns monologue into dialogue.

Why the heavier weighting on Problem Solving?
In the case room, a shaky hypothesis sinks the answer long before poise or perfect arithmetic can save it. That's why half the score is reserved for the clarity and strength of your thinking.