FDEInterviews logo
← The reading room

September 2026 / Included with Premium

The Agentic
System Design Round

Worked designs under customer constraints.

A payment request times out after the refund succeeds. An invoice pipeline needs more reviewers than the customer has. An evaluation improves on average while allowing a forbidden action. Work through ten designs where the customer constraints determine the architecture.

Already a member? Sign in to download →

The Agentic System Design Round cover, with ivory paper, blue accents and large editorial typography.
pages
38
worked cases
10
vector diagrams
10
companion checks
15

Read the reasoning before you download.

Three complete pages from the PDF: permission checks under a latency budget, a review queue that cannot keep up, and the limits of a zero-failure evaluation. Open each page at full size.

Ten customer constraints to design around.

  1. CASE 01

    Answers behind permissions

    Authorize retrieved documents and check access before dispatching an answer.

  2. CASE 02

    The refund that timed out

    Keep an unknown outcome distinct from failure and reconcile before another write.

  3. CASE 03

    Invoices with an audit trail

    Connect extraction evidence to human review capacity and the ERP posting decision.

  4. CASE 04

    An MCP gateway with a small authority boundary

    Separate tool arguments from authority and keep credentials outside model context.

  5. CASE 05

    Finish the batch before morning

    Size worker concurrency, token quota and retry spend against a deadline.

  6. CASE 06

    Stop an agent that cannot finish

    Enforce execution limits outside the model and preserve a useful handoff.

  7. CASE 07

    Approval that survives a changed plan

    Bind approval to the exact proposal and handle duplicate dispatch.

  8. CASE 08

    Replace a rules engine without losing control

    Keep one authoritative writer and define the repair work left after rollback.

  9. CASE 09

    An evaluation that can block release

    Separate forbidden effects from average quality and interpret zero failures correctly.

  10. CASE 10

    Research agents with a spending limit

    Defend parallelism using a critical path, evidence requirements and a shared budget.

The guide also includes design clinics, an original mock discussion, a practice rubric and worksheets. All scenarios and numerical inputs are labelled teaching assumptions. The sources support technical mechanisms, not employer pass rates.

Work the case. Study the mechanism.

These links also appear in the PDF. Questions, concepts and course lessons keep their displayed access levels.

  1. Cases 01 and 04

    Keep retrieved evidence inside its permission boundary

  2. Cases 02 and 07

    Recover actions and bind approvals

  3. Cases 03, 05 and 06

    Size queues, review capacity and execution budgets

  4. Cases 08 and 09

    Make rollout depend on evidence

  5. Case 10 and the mock discussion

    Defend the orchestration choice

Before you download

Is the guide included with my existing Premium access?

Yes. The complete PDF and verification companion are included while your Premium access is active. There is no separate purchase. Three sample pages are public.

Are these actual employer interview questions?

No. The cases, dialogues, workloads and prices are original synthetic teaching examples. Primary engineering references support the mechanisms; they do not establish employer interview formats or hiring outcomes.

What does the companion validate?

Fifteen deterministic Python checks recompute the worked numbers and exercise selected synthetic invariants, including refund replay and approval binding. They use the standard library and need no API keys. They do not validate real providers, LLM quality or concurrent database behavior.

How should I use the online study path?

Attempt a case before reading its worked design. Then use the linked concepts, questions and course lessons to study the decision you could not defend. Those resources keep their existing access tiers.

How was the guide reviewed?

AI tools assisted drafting, research organization, diagrams and verification. The publisher reviewed and approved the guide. The arithmetic and selected failure semantics were checked with executable examples, and the PDF was inspected for layout defects.