Axon
Axon is the leading public safety technology company with an integrated ecosystem of hardware (body cams, in-car cameras, TASER devices, drones) and cloud software (Evidence.com) to help law enforcement, fire, EMS, and commercial security capture, manage, and analyze digital evidence, aiming to increase officer productivity, transparency, and community safety, all while striving to "Protect Life."
Open Opportunities
Available Challenges
The Re-Platform Decision
You are the Senior Product Manager for trust and identity on Fusus, Axon's real-time operations platform. Fusus brings CCTV, body-worn video, license plate reader data, drone control, and alarm systems into one operating picture for public-safety agencies. When AI triage flags an incoming 911 call as high-severity, analysts pull cameras and launch drones while the incident is live. Seconds matter. Fusus's permission system was built for one customer shape: a police department. It has since been extended eleven times, for school districts, correctional facilities, private enterprises, and international policing bodies. Each extension was a special case grafted onto the same underlying model. Here is where that has left you: Permissions are evaluated inside each service, using a shared library that every team copies and modifies. Seven Fusus product teams now maintain their own variant. Two of them have diverged enough that the same user gets different answers from different services. A new customer type takes 6 to 9 weeks of engineering work to onboard, most of it spent on permissions. Last month, a configuration error at a mid-sized agency exposed one district's camera feeds to an adjacent district for four hours. It was caught by a customer, not by Axon. Leadership has committed to re-platforming. You have engineering capacity for one substantial change in the next two quarters, not a full rewrite. Your job: decide what to rebuild from first principles, what to leave alone, and what to build first. Then defend it. Constraints These are real. Solutions that ignore them score lower than simpler solutions that honor them. One substantial change, two quarters. You do not have capacity for a full rewrite. Something significant stays as it is. Name it and defend leaving it. Seven product teams, no reorg. The Fusus product teams do not report to you and are shipping their own roadmaps. You cannot mandate that all seven stop and migrate. Whatever you propose has to give them a reason to adopt it. Sub-second authorization in the incident path. Policy evaluation sits in the path of a live response. A centralized service that adds meaningful latency to every authorization decision is not viable without an answer for it. You will own this. Your name is on this recommendation. You are in the room with the engineering leads defending it, and you are on the call when the migration goes sideways. On Using AI Use AI. We want you to. This role exists in a world where the work gets done with AI, and we would rather see how you direct it than pretend you didn't. What we are looking for is not whether the AI produced something good. It is whether you noticed when it didn't. Generic access-model answers are easy to generate. The scenario constraints above are where the real work is, and AI will happily ignore them. The candidates who score well are the ones who caught that and fixed it. Scope Note Thirty minutes is not enough time to do this completely, and we know that. We are not looking for completeness. We are looking for what you chose to spend the time on and how you reasoned. A focused, well-argued partial answer scores higher than a comprehensive shallow one. Communication note: Communication clarity matters here, and it is scored. We assess concision, whether you give the right context for your audience, whether you make complex trust and access concepts understandable without relying on unexplained jargon, and whether you define what "good" means rather than assuming it. We do not assess presentation style, accent, pace, or filler words. Speak naturally, and explain it the way you would to a smart colleague who does not work in identity.
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 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).