feat(sbb): interview invitation 2026-09-09, write interview brief

SBB Data Engineer (Job ID 103755): invited 2026-08-28 for Wednesday
9 September 2026, 08:30, 45 min on Teams.

Per the posting's own process this is stage 2 of 4 - "Virtuelles
Kennenlernen mit HR und Fuehrungskraft" - so HR together with Andri
Wienandts, not a pure HR screen. 45 minutes shared between two people,
which is the practical constraint the brief is built around.

Two facts worth recording:
- This is the FIRST conversion of the evidence-first cohort (6
  applications, 2 rejections), and it came from a COLD submit. The
  channel plan called for phoning Wienandts before applying; that never
  happened, so the published warm contact went unused.
- The resume never contained Snowflake, dbt or Power BI - the three
  literals an ATS keyword screen would have keyed on, and a risk the
  session had explicitly recorded as "accepted, not solvable". It did
  not filter him out, so a human read the dossier and the honest
  substitution framing survived first contact. One data point; not
  enough to revise strategy on, but it is evidence against assuming
  honest omissions are fatal at the screen.

Brief covers the four questions that must not go unasked (Anforderungs-
niveau K band, design/architecture scope vs current Staff + Component
Owner level, RAMSI's Java/Spring Boot/Angular share, Kidz Care rate),
the substitution answers for each named-but-non-canonical tool, the
swissTAMP/RIS/MUD context, and the thesis boundary - methods prototype,
no operational data, no accuracy figures, PSO surveyed only.

It also asks him to decide three things before the call rather than on
camera: what he does if K lands at 130-150k, if architecture is set
elsewhere, or if RAMSI turns out to be heavily Angular. Any one can be
a no, and the level question is the same shape as the declined BKW.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JMcHCsTKWvVzqyLChF5ckk

AGENTS.md

@@ -157,6 +157,7 @@ _Update this section when starting/finishing a JD._
 
 | Session | Status | Next Command |
 |---------|--------|-------------|
+| SBB - **Data Engineer (m/w/d)**, Asset Management Infrastrukturanlagen, **Bern** (Job ID 103755) | ⭐ **INTERVIEW INVITED 2026-08-28 - 9. September 2026, 08:30, 45 Min, MS Teams. The only live interview in the log.** Stage **2 of 4** per the posting: *"Virtuelles Kennenlernen mit HR und Fuehrungskraft"*, so **HR together with Andri Wienandts**, not a pure HR screen. Brief: `output/SBB_DataEngineer_AssetMgmt/interview_brief_sbb_2026-09-09.md`. **First conversion of the evidence-first cohort** (6 applications, 2 rejections) and it came from a **COLD submit** - the warm contact printed on the posting was never called. The resume never contained **Snowflake, dbt or Power BI**, the literals an ATS screen would key on, and it still got through: a human read it and the honest-substitution framing held. One data point, do not over-read it. Submitted 2026-08-25, Core, Evidence Fit **79/100**, hard gate PASS, Document Quality **92/100**, no cover letter (SBB waives it). Best practical fit in the log: Bern, German-language, no relocation, EU + B permit. **Four unresolved items, now live call topics:** Anforderungsniveau **K** band (capped GAV, not public, likely below the 180k bar); the seat reads **lateral or below** current Staff + Component Owner scope (the declined-BKW shape); **RAMSI** Java/Spring Boot/Angular is a full responsibility line on a historical/absent stack; Kidz Care scales on gross household income. Gaps to answer honestly: Snowflake, dbt, Argo, Helm, Power BI, Spring Boot, Angular - survivable only because the JD says "z. B.". Thesis stays a **methods prototype**: no operational data, no accuracy figures, PSO surveyed only. | **Decide before 9.9.:** what he does if K lands at 130-150k, if architecture is set elsewhere, or if RAMSI is heavily Angular. Any one can be a no - better decided in advance than improvised on camera. |
 | RUAG C5I - **AI Engineer C5I**, **Thun** (application ID 18027) | **SUBMITTED 2026-08-27** via jobs.ruag.ch (portal only). Evidence Fit **74/100**, fit class **Stretch**, hard gate **FAIL** (R1/R2, the title-defining responsibilities, are Adjacent not Direct), Document Quality **93/100** after a critique-and-fix round, channel **Weak/cold**. German CV 2 pages/13 bullets + motivation letter 1 page/295 words; validators PASS, 0 boxes, visual QA clean. **Cohort now 6/10 and the sole Stretch slot is CONSUMED (Stretch 1/1).** Positioning is his canonical title Staff Data, Analytics & AI Engineer; `PP-3` carries current Linux/hardening evidence and `SW-5` ties DevSecOps to C5I's stated model. The letter names the AI-platform gap in one sentence. Honest gaps: no AI/LLM platform, no compute/GPU cluster, no RAG/retrieval, ML/AI frameworks certification-context only. **Compensation, PSP/project eligibility and level were never resolved and are now live screening topics.** Marco Heinzen's published direct line was never used. **If rejected, do not drop RUAG** - Senior DevOps Engineer C5I and Data Lakehouse / Senior Data Platform Engineer are shortlisted and fit better. | Await response; optional calls to Marco Heinzen (scope/level) and Frank Haugwitz (comp/PSP). |
 | Schweizer Armee - **Kommando Cyber (Kdo Cy)**, DevOps Engineer III (Data Platform), **Zimmerwald** (Ref JRQ$540-19848) | **SUBMITTED 2026-08-27.** Evidence Fit **79/Core**, hard gate **PASS**, Document Quality **92/100**, channel **Weak**. German 2-page CV plus 1-page motivation letter; validators PASS, 0 boxes, visual QA clean. BW-1 surfaces the six-year Bundeswehr officer career. User explicitly accepted the critique's remaining BS-1 wording issue (*„ohne manuellen Eingriff“*) as good enough and submitted unchanged. Cohort evidence-first-2026-01 is now 5/10, Core 3/7. | Await response; optional post-submit call to Marcel Matthey-Doret about Lohnklasse, Engineer-III level and development path. |
 | Google - Software Engineer III, Business Home, Zurich (req 93922217108087494) | **CLOSED - NOT PROCEEDING 2026-07-28** (submitted 2026-07-27; Core, Evidence Fit 89/100, Document Quality 94/100; no interview). Rapid early-screen disposition; known risks were Mid-level versus current Staff scope, data/platform versus product-SWE positioning, preferred algorithms/accessibility gaps, and a cold channel. | Done - cohort rejection recorded; do not treat this outcome alone as a document-quality failure |