Opening the Evidence Vault: Platform Strategy for AI-Era Integrations
The Platform Decision You are the newly hired Principal Product Manager for Developer Platforms at a major public safety technology company. The company's flagship product is a cloud-based digital evidence management platform used by…
Create a free account to upload your work. Your progress saves as a draft until you submit.
What You'll Be Doing
The Platform Decision
You are the newly hired Principal Product Manager for Developer Platforms at a major public safety technology company. The company's flagship product is a cloud-based digital evidence management platform used by thousands of law enforcement agencies. It handles body camera footage, interview recordings, incident reports, and case files — all governed by strict chain-of-custody requirements, audit logging obligations, and PII handling regulations.
The platform currently has a basic REST API used by a handful of internal tools and two legacy integration partners. Leadership has decided to evolve it into a composable, open evidence backend — a platform where any authorized surface (internal or third-party) can access, act on, and contribute to evidence data through well-governed APIs.
Simultaneously, agencies are beginning to deploy their own AI tools for case analysis, predictive workflows, and automated reporting. These AI agents need to query evidence, check chain of custody, surface case connections, and take actions — all through a permissioned, auditable interface. This is not a traditional API use case. AI agents operate autonomously, make decisions without human confirmation at each step, and may chain multiple operations together.
Your VP has asked you to present, in 30 minutes, the first version of your platform strategy. She specifically wants to understand:
- What gets exposed first vs. later — and why that sequence, not a different one.
- How you govern who gets access and under what conditions — particularly for AI agents vs. traditional integrations.
- How you bring engineering, legal, security, and go-to-market into alignment when they will disagree about speed, openness, and risk.
- What the developer experience looks like for partners who want to build on this platform — and how you measure whether the ecosystem is healthy.
Constraints to Consider
Chain of custody is legally required. Any integration that touches evidence data must maintain an unbroken, auditable chain of custody. A platform decision that introduces chain-of-custody gaps could invalidate evidence in court proceedings. This is not a product risk — it is a legal and public safety risk.
Agency IT environments vary wildly. Some agencies run modern cloud infrastructure; others run legacy on-premise systems with limited API capability. Your platform strategy must work for agencies at both ends of the spectrum.
AI agents are not human users. They operate autonomously, may chain multiple API calls without human review, and their actions must be as auditable as a human officer's. Governance for AI agent access is architecturally different from traditional API key access.
Legal and security stakeholders have veto-equivalent weight. Shipping a feature that legal or security has not cleared is a non-starter. Your alignment strategy must account for this without becoming paralyzed.
You have no existing developer portal, sandbox, or partner certification program. Everything must be built from a basic REST API and two legacy partners.
AI Usage Guidance
We expect you to use AI tools. We evaluate how you use them — not whether you use them. Evidence of iteration, redirection, and critical evaluation scores higher than a polished output with no process documentation.
The single highest-signal indicator: your video answer to the mandatory AI question. If you cannot name a specific moment where you redirected AI output, evaluators will assume you did not.
Mandatory AI question for your video: Walk me through one moment where you disagreed with, pushed back on, or redirected what the AI gave you — and what you did instead. Name the specific moment. Explain what the AI produced that didn't meet the bar, what you did differently, and why.
Communication note: This is a Principal PM role. You will represent the platform externally to partners and internally to leadership. Speak naturally and with strategic clarity — as if you're briefing your VP of Product. We are assessing the quality and clarity of your reasoning, not verbal polish, accent, or pace.
Submission: Upload each deliverable as a separate file directly on the Provn platform: your Platform Strategy Brief, your README document (Sections A, B, and C), and your video walkthrough (MP4 or MOV).
What You'll Accomplish
Demonstrate ability to define a multi-year platform strategy for a regulated evidence management ecosystem
Show how to sequence API and AI agent capability exposure based on partner value, technical risk, and regulatory constraint
Articulate a governance framework that differentiates between integration types (traditional API vs. AI agent) and partner types (legal tech, forensic, agency-built)
Propose a cross-functional operating model that navigates genuine stakeholder conflict between engineering, legal, security, and GTM
Design a developer experience strategy that treats the ecosystem as a product, not just a documentation project
Demonstrate AI fluency through iterative, critical use of AI tools with documented process
How Your Work Will Be Scored
What to Submit
Platform Strategy Brief
Format: .pdf, .doc, .docx, .rtf, .txt, .md
A 1–2 page document covering: platform vision, sequencing logic, governance framework (AI agent access vs. traditional API), developer experience priorities, success metrics (3–4 specific), and stakeholder alignment approach. Bullet points and structured sections are fine. (~5 minutes)
Sign in to upload files
README Document
Format: .pdf, .doc, .docx, .rtf, .txt, .md
Three required sections:
- Section A: Strategic Rationale (300–500 words) explaining your sequencing reasoning, openness/integrity tradeoffs, and what you'd do with more time.
- Section B: Stakeholder Navigation Deep Dive (200–400 words) picking the hardest stakeholder alignment challenge and explaining how you'd navigate it — name the tension, the stakeholders, and the resolution mechanism.
- Section C: AI Usage Log (Mandatory) documenting your AI collaboration process — for each significant interaction: what you asked, what it gave you, what you kept/changed/rejected and why. Three interactions is sufficient.
Sign in to upload files
Video Walkthrough
Format: .mp4, .mov, .webm
Record as MP4/MOV/WEBM and upload directly on the Provn platform. Cover:
- Summary of problem and solution
- Platform Strategy Brief walkthrough,
- Section B stakeholder deep dive
- Mandatory AI question — walk through one moment where you disagreed with or redirected what the AI gave you
- What you'd do differently with more time. Speak naturally and conversationally — as if you're briefing your VP directly
Sign in to upload files
Create a free account to upload your work. Your progress saves as a draft until you submit.
On this page