The key thing missing from the question is what the thing being built is. Any answer to the question of how to build must (to be coherent) address what is being built, and anyone who has a what to build and a how to build it for a revolutionary product that takes only $100,000 in VC capital should be shopping that for financing, not looking for a technical gig working on someone else's (probably not revolutionary, certainly more expensive to build, and even more certainly providing the candidate less equity) thing.
Presuming this is a technical interview and the skills are already identified and qualified the "what it is" isn't particularly important. This isn't hiring for marketing or product management. Make anything up. In this case the production process and software organization strategies are what matter.
Attempting to bullshit past the spirit of the question with deflections and non-answers are easily identifiable failures.
> Presuming this is a technical interview and the skills are already identified and qualified the "what it is" isn't particularly important.
It may not be important to the person asking the question, but it's actually quite central to being able to have a coherent answer.
A better question, if the “what” isn't important, is to identify a concrete thing rather than a “revolutionary idea”; if “what?” isn't important, don't ask a question which fundamentally requires having an answer to “what?”.
> Attempting to bullshit past the spirit of the question
Asking a poorly framed question and blaming the person questioned for bullshitting for not correctly deducing the intended spirit certainly reflects negatively on someone, just not the interviewee.
