Tell me about a time your principles conflicted with commercial pressure.

Values-forward labs are screening for calibrated judgment, not zealotry; the candidate who 'never compromises' is as risky to them as the one who always folds, because both are unable to tell a real line from a preference. The tell of a strong answer is a specific, costly story where the line was drawn narrowly and the candidate can articulate when they WOULD have bent. The held-back follow-up is 'when have you compromised, and were you right to?', which checks whether you have judgment or just a rule. Distinguish this from the deal-pressure refusal question: here the emphasis is the calibration, holding the line without absolutism.