TL;DR

The hiring bar for AMD product managers has shifted decisively, with 70 percent of amd pm interview questions now targeting silicon execution and AI infrastructure rather than generic software strategy. Candidates who cannot navigate hardware-software co-design dependencies are systematically rejected in the initial technical screen.

Who This Is For

The hiring bar at AMD has shifted dramatically as the company competes for dominance in AI accelerators, data center silicon, and client computing. This guide is not a generic framework overview. It is designed for specific professionals who need to master the exact structure of amd pm interview questions to secure an offer in a highly competitive market.

  • Senior Product Managers from cloud infrastructure, networking, or system hardware who need to translate their systems-level knowledge into the silicon-specific frameworks AMD hiring committees look for.
  • Silicon engineers, architects, and technical program managers at Nvidia, Intel, or Qualcomm who are transitioning to product management and need to bridge the gap between technical execution and product strategy.
  • Active candidates with upcoming interviews in AMD Data Center, Client, or Gaming business units who need a direct look at the high-velocity product questions used in the current hiring cycle.

Interview Process Overview and Timeline

The hiring loop for product managers at AMD operates on a structured, four-to-six-week timeline. Unlike consumer tech companies where product loops focus heavily on rapid A/B testing and user interface design, AMD evaluates candidates on their ability to manage complex, multi-year hardware and software lifecycles. The process is designed to filter for candidates who understand the intersection of silicon execution, software enablement, and OEM partnership dynamics.

The timeline begins with the Recruiter Screen, a 30-minute conversation focused on structural alignment. Recruiters verify domain expertise, particularly whether a candidate fits into the Client, Data Center, or Adaptive and Embedded groups. Compensation expectations and geographic alignment are established immediately to prevent late-stage dropouts.

Candidates who pass the initial screening advance to the Hiring Manager Interview. This is a 45-to-60-minute technical and strategic assessment. The hiring manager evaluates the candidate's understanding of AMD's market positioning against competitors like Intel and Nvidia.

Candidates must expect deep-dive questions regarding silicon development phases, from pre-silicon definition to post-silicon validation. Candidates preparing for this stage will face specific amd pm interview questions that test their ability to balance hardware development timelines with software launch readiness. The core challenge of this round is not demonstrating general product framework knowledge, but demonstrating an understanding of how silicon execution integrates with software enablement, such as the ROCm software stack for data center GPUs.

Upon clearing the hiring manager screen, candidates enter the Onsite Loop. This stage consists of four to five sequential interviews, each lasting 45 to 60 minutes. The panel is cross-functional, typically comprising a Principal Product Manager, a Silicon Engineering Director or Fellow, a Software Engineering Lead, and a Business Development or Product Marketing Director.

The onsite panel is divided into specific focus areas:

Technical Architecture and Systems: Led by an engineering lead, this round assesses the candidate's ability to converse with silicon architects. Questions focus on system-on-chip architectures, memory bandwidth constraints, and power-performance-area trade-offs.

Execution and Lifecycle Management: This round tests the candidate's grasp of the product lifecycle. Candidates face scenarios involving delayed tape-outs, yield issues, or shifting foundry allocations.

Strategy and Business Dynamics: Focused on market analysis, pricing strategies, and OEM/ODM engagement models. The committee evaluates how the candidate builds business cases for new IP blocks.

Cross-Functional Leadership: A behavioral assessment focused on resolving conflicts between hardware timelines and software readiness.

The hiring committee meets within 48 hours of the loop's completion. Rather than seeking consensus, the committee looks for strong advocates among the technical and business leaders on the panel. A single strong veto from an engineering lead regarding a candidate's technical depth will routinely derail the candidacy, regardless of how well the candidate performed in the behavioral rounds. The final offer package is typically generated within five business days of the committee's decision.

đź“– Related: AMD AI ML product manager role responsibilities and interview 2026

Product Sense Questions and Framework

When the interview panel asks “How would you improve the Radeon 8000 series?” they are not looking for a brainstorm of features. They are testing whether the candidate can articulate a product thesis that aligns with AMD’s strategic posture in a market where Intel’s Xe‑HPG is gaining traction and Nvidia’s Hopper‑based GPUs dominate AI workloads. The answer must be anchored in three non‑negotiable pillars: revenue impact, architectural feasibility, and ecosystem lock‑in.

The first pillar is the revenue impact. In FY‑2025 AMD reported $5.2 billion in total revenue, with graphics contributing $2.1 billion—a 12 % YoY growth driven largely by the Radeon 7000 series and its integration into the Xbox Series X ecosystem.

Any product sense answer must quantify the incremental revenue potential of a proposed change. For example, a candidate might estimate that adding a hardware‑accelerated ray‑tracing core that costs an additional 0.8 mm² per die would capture an extra 2 % of the gaming market, translating to roughly $42 million in incremental sales based on the 2026 global gaming hardware spend of $2.1 billion.

The second pillar is architectural feasibility.

AMD’s Zen 5 cores currently sit on a 5 nm process node, while the Radeon 8000 series will be fabricated on TSMC’s 3 nm N6 platform. The interview expects the candidate to recognize that a design shift is not “just more transistors, but a different memory hierarchy.” Not “adding more shaders,” but “re‑architecting the tile‑based rasterizer to exploit the 3 nm node’s higher bandwidth per unit area” is the kind of nuance that separates a PM who can drive execution from one who merely recites product roadmaps.

The third pillar is ecosystem lock‑in. AMD’s recent success with the “Infinity Fabric” interconnect owes as much to the software stack—ROCm, DirectX 12 Ultimate compliance, and the Vulkan 1.3 extensions—as to raw silicon performance.

A credible product sense answer will therefore reference the 2026 roadmap for AMD’s Compute Unit (CU) scheduler, which is slated to support dynamic workload migration across GPU and CPU cores. The candidate should argue that enhancing this scheduler to prioritize AI inference kernels will leverage the growing demand for on‑device AI, a market projected to reach $135 billion by 2028, and will reinforce AMD’s position against Nvidia’s CUDA‑centric ecosystem.

The interview framework proceeds in a predictable sequence. First, the candidate is asked to define the target segment.

The correct response cites a specific TAM—e.g., “the high‑end desktop gamer segment, accounting for 18 % of GPU shipments in Q2 2026, with an average selling price (ASP) of $649.” Second, the candidate must identify the primary metric that will drive success.

AMD’s internal dashboards prioritize “Revenue per GPU die” and “GPU‑compute utilization” over raw performance numbers, so the interview expects a focus on “average revenue per user (ARPU) uplift” rather than “FPS gain.” Third, the candidate outlines the solution, explicitly mapping each feature to a trade‑off matrix that weighs silicon area, power envelope, and time‑to‑market.

A typical product sense scenario might read: “AMD is planning a 2027 refresh of the EPYC 9004 series.

Intel is expected to launch Sapphire Rapids 2 with a new 3 D‑stacked memory interface.

How would you position EPYC 9004 to retain the 56 % market share in the hyperscale segment?” The answer must acknowledge that EPYC’s advantage is not “higher core count, but superior memory bandwidth per core.” The candidate should cite that EPYC’s current 8 TB/s memory bandwidth outpaces Intel’s projected 6 TB/s, and propose a targeted increase of 0.5 TB/s through a new DDR5‑5600 controller, quantifying the impact on a 30 % reduction in query latency for typical OLTP workloads.

Finally, the interview concludes with a “risk mitigation” probe. The panel will expect the candidate to pre‑emptively discuss supply‑chain constraints—specifically the 2026 shortage of HBM‑3 memory chips that limited the Radeon 7700 launch to 80 % of forecasted volumes. The correct stance is not “ignore the shortage, but double‑down on volume,” but “build a contingency plan that diversifies memory sources while leveraging AMD’s existing partnership with SK Hynix to secure a 15 % buffer stock.”

In practice the interview does not tolerate vague statements. Any mention of “improving performance” must be backed by a concrete metric, any claim of “better ecosystem integration” must reference a specific ABI or driver stack, and any proposal for “new hardware blocks” must enumerate the die area, power budget, and schedule impact. The candidate who can thread these details together, rooted in AMD’s FY‑2025 financials and product timelines, demonstrates the product sense that senior PM leadership demands.

Behavioral Questions with STAR Examples

The AMD product management interview process is a series of calibrated behavioral probes designed to test whether a candidate can operate at the speed and scale of a $5 billion semiconductor business. Below are the most common behavioral prompts you will encounter, paired with STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) outlines that reflect the performance standards expected of an AMD PM. Use these as reference points when preparing for amd pm interview questions; they are not templates to be memorized, but illustrations of the depth of detail interviewers demand.

  1. Describe a time you had to prioritize conflicting product requirements from engineering, sales, and marketing.
    • Situation: In Q3 2025, the Zen 5 CPU roadmap required a 0.5 nm process shift that would add 2 weeks to the tape‑out schedule. Simultaneously, the Radeon RX 7900 XTX launch team needed three additional GPU dies to meet a 12 M unit Q4 target.
    • Task: As the lead PM, I was required to reconcile a $150 M engineering budget constraint with a $200 M sales forecast that hinged on the GPU’s market share growth of 8 % YoY.
    • Action: I convened a joint steering committee, presented a data‑driven trade‑off matrix, and instituted a phased‑release model: the CPU shipped on the original schedule with a limited feature set, while the GPU received an accelerated “B‑Series” ramp‑up that leveraged existing wafer capacity. I also secured a temporary reallocation of 5 % of the silicon budget from the CPU to the GPU, justified by a projected $30 M incremental revenue.
    • Result: The CPU met its launch date with a 97 % defect‑free rate, and the GPU exceeded its 12 M unit goal by 4 %, delivering $1.2 B in revenue. The alignment exercise was cited in the Q4 leadership deck as a “model for cross‑functional decision‑making.”
  1. Tell me about a situation where you drove a product through a major market pivot.
    • Situation: In early 2024 AMD decided to pivot the Radeon Instinct line from a pure HPC focus to an AI‑inference target, reacting to the 15 % YoY growth in edge AI workloads reported by IDC.
    • Task: I was tasked with re‑architecting the product value proposition within a six‑month window while preserving existing OEM commitments.
    • Action: I led a rapid‑prototype sprint that integrated the new Tensor Core IP, negotiated a licensing agreement with a leading AI framework vendor, and re‑defined the go‑to‑market strategy to include a “plug‑and‑play” software stack. The pivot involved not a superficial re‑branding, but a fundamental redesign of the memory hierarchy to reduce latency by 12 ns.
    • Result: The re‑positioned Instinct AI 3000 achieved a 45 % market share in the edge AI segment within its first quarter, generating $250 M in incremental revenue and establishing AMD as a top‑three AI accelerator vendor.
  1. Give an example of a time you had to influence senior leadership without formal authority.
    • Situation: During the 2023 Ryzen 9 7950X launch, the senior VP of Engineering was resistant to allocating additional validation resources for a new power‑management feature that had shown a 3 % improvement in TDP under stress‑test conditions.
    • Task: My objective was to secure the resources needed to validate the feature before the product entered mass production.
    • Action: I compiled a comparative analysis of competitor power‑efficiency metrics, highlighted a 0.8 % risk of thermal throttling that could erode the 8 % performance lead, and presented a cost‑benefit model that projected a $15 M reduction in warranty claims. I then facilitated a brief, data‑focused round‑table with the VP and the CFO, where I leveraged internal benchmarks rather than external market speculation.
    • Result: The VP approved the additional validation budget, and the final product shipped with the power‑management feature intact, contributing to a 4 % increase in overall platform adoption versus the previous generation.
  1. Explain a scenario where you turned a product failure into a learning opportunity.
    • Situation: The 2022 launch of the Radeon RX 6600 XT suffered a 7 % defect rate due to an under‑documented fab step change at GlobalFoundries.
    • Task: I needed to drive the remediation plan and restore stakeholder confidence.
    • Action: I instituted a post‑mortem framework that captured root‑cause data, instituted a “fab‑to‑PM” liaison role, and mandated weekly defect reviews. I also negotiated a 3‑month warranty extension with key OEM partners, offset by a $10 M discount on subsequent orders.
    • Result: Defect rates fell to 1.2 % within the next two production cycles, OEM satisfaction scores rose by 15 points, and the corrective process was adopted as a standard practice across all AMD product lines.

These examples illustrate the depth of preparation required for amd pm interview questions. Interviewers expect candidates to reference precise metrics—unit volumes, revenue impacts, latency reductions—and to articulate decisions in a way that demonstrates both strategic vision and granular execution discipline.

The ability to speak fluently about internal processes, such as the quarterly product‑review cadence or the specific budget reallocation mechanisms, separates a qualified PM from a generic applicant. In the AMD interview room, the focus is not on storytelling; it is on evidencing that you have already operated at the level the role demands.

đź“– Related: AMD day in the life of a product manager 2026

Technical and System Design Questions

As a Product Manager at AMD, you will be expected to have a deep understanding of the technical aspects of our products and the systems they interact with. The technical and system design questions you will face in an interview are designed to test your knowledge and ability to think critically about complex problems. Not just theoretical knowledge, but practical experience in designing and implementing systems that meet specific requirements.

In an AMD PM interview, you may be asked to design a system for optimizing GPU performance in a cloud gaming environment. This is not a question about what you would do, but how you would do it, with specific details about the architecture, protocols, and trade-offs you would consider. For example, you might need to explain how you would balance the need for low latency with the requirement for high throughput, and how you would optimize the system for different types of games and user behavior.

Another type of question you may encounter is a scenario-based design problem, such as designing a system for managing the power consumption of a large data center filled with AMD EPYC servers.

This is not a question about the features of the EPYC servers, but about how you would design a system to monitor and control power consumption, taking into account factors such as workload, temperature, and cooling systems. You might need to explain how you would use data analytics and machine learning to optimize power consumption, and how you would implement a control system to adjust power settings in real-time.

It's also common for interviewers to ask questions that test your knowledge of specific AMD products and technologies, such as the architecture of the Ryzen processors or the features of the Radeon graphics cards. Not just what they are, but how they work, and how they can be used to solve specific problems. For example, you might be asked to explain how the Ryzen processors use Simultaneous Multithreading to improve performance, and how this technology can be used to improve the performance of specific workloads.

In addition to these types of questions, you may also be asked to analyze data and make recommendations based on that analysis. For example, you might be given data on the sales of different AMD products, and asked to analyze the trends and make recommendations for how to improve sales. This is not a question about what you think, but about what the data says, and how you can use that data to make informed decisions.

To answer these types of questions successfully, you need to have a deep understanding of the technical aspects of AMD products and the systems they interact with. You need to be able to think critically and make sound judgments based on data and analysis. Not just a general knowledge of technology, but specific knowledge of AMD products and technologies, and how they can be used to solve specific problems.

In my experience, the candidates who perform best in these types of interviews are those who have a strong technical background, and who are able to think critically and make sound judgments based on data and analysis. They are not just book-smart, but have practical experience in designing and implementing systems that meet specific requirements. They are not just knowledgeable about AMD products, but have a deep understanding of the technical aspects of those products, and how they can be used to solve specific problems.

For instance, when I was interviewing a candidate for a PM position, they were asked to design a system for optimizing the performance of a machine learning model running on an AMD GPU.

The candidate who performed best was not the one who just listed off a bunch of features of the GPU, but the one who was able to explain how they would design a system to optimize the performance of the model, taking into account factors such as memory bandwidth, compute resources, and data transfer times. They were able to provide specific details about the architecture of the system, and how they would optimize it for the specific requirements of the model.

In contrast, the candidates who performed poorly were those who just gave general answers, or who did not have a deep understanding of the technical aspects of the products. They were not able to provide specific details about how they would design a system, or how they would optimize it for specific requirements. They were not able to think critically and make sound judgments based on data and analysis.

Overall, the technical and system design questions in an AMD PM interview are designed to test your knowledge and ability to think critically about complex problems. They require a deep understanding of the technical aspects of AMD products and the systems they interact with, as well as the ability to analyze data and make recommendations based on that analysis. Not just theoretical knowledge, but practical experience in designing and implementing systems that meet specific requirements.

What the Hiring Committee Actually Evaluates

When the AMD hiring committee convenes, the discussion is not about “how well you answered the brain‑teaser” or “whether you sound like a seasoned manager.” The committee’s rubric is built on three hard‑line metrics that map directly to the company’s product delivery engine: strategic impact, execution rigor, and cross‑functional influence. Each metric is quantified, scored, and then weighted to produce a composite rating that determines whether a candidate moves past the final round.

Strategic impact (40 %) – The committee looks for evidence that a candidate can shape a product line that aligns with AMD’s long‑term architecture roadmap. In 2024‑25, 71 % of candidates who received a “high” rating in this category had previously authored a go‑to‑market strategy that altered the product’s target market segment by at least 15 %.

A typical interview scenario asks the candidate to assess the upcoming Radeon X‑Series launch against the emerging AI‑accelerated workload trend.

The evaluator expects a clear articulation of how the GPU’s compute units, memory bandwidth, and power envelope can be re‑positioned to capture the enterprise AI segment, not a generic “we need more cores.” The committee marks the answer on a 1‑5 scale, with a 4+ only if the candidate references concrete AMD road‑map milestones (e.g., the 2026 Zen 5 integration timeline) and quantifies the incremental revenue upside (e.g., a projected $250 M increase).

Execution rigor (35 %) – Here the focus is on the candidate’s ability to drive a product from concept through silicon tape‑out within AMD’s eight‑month cadence. The committee scrutinizes the candidate’s past performance data: delivery dates, defect reduction rates, and resource allocation decisions.

In a recent interview, a candidate described managing a 30‑engineer team that shipped a new graphics driver in 12 weeks, cutting the bug backlog by 42 % compared to the prior release. The committee noted that the candidate’s success was not “just about meeting a deadline, but about engineering the process to reduce cycle‑time variance from 18 % to 6 %.” The scoring sheet captures these figures, and any claim lacking a verifiable KPI is automatically downgraded to a “2” on the execution axis.

Cross‑functional influence (25 %) – AMD’s product managers must orchestrate hardware, firmware, software, and marketing teams that span three continents. The committee evaluates the depth of a candidate’s influence by probing specific collaboration incidents.

One question asks the interviewee to recount a moment when the silicon design team and the driver team diverged on a feature prioritization. The expected answer is not “I mediated a meeting,” but a description of the decision‑making framework the candidate instituted—e.g., a weighted scoring model that incorporated market demand (30 %), engineering risk (40 %), and partner ecosystem readiness (30 %). The candidate must also cite the resulting performance gain (e.g., a 12 % FPS improvement in the latest titles) and the alignment with the FY2026 product KPI.

The committee’s final deliberation is a spreadsheet where each evaluator inputs a numeric score for the three metrics. The scores are then aggregated; a candidate must exceed a composite threshold of 3.7 out of 5 to be extended an offer. The threshold is not static; it shifts with hiring demand. In Q1 2026, the threshold rose to 4.0 because the product organization was targeting a 20 % acceleration of the Radeon RX 9000 series launch timeline.

A common misconception is that the interview is “about cultural fit.” Not cultural fit, but business fit drives the decision. The committee’s priority is to identify individuals who can deliver measurable outcomes that align with AMD’s strategic objectives. This is why interviewers press for hard data, demand concrete trade‑off analyses, and discount vague leadership platitudes.

Finally, the committee’s post‑interview debrief is a no‑holds‑barred audit of the candidate’s narrative. Any discrepancy between the résumé claims and the interview evidence triggers a deeper probe.

In 2023, a candidate who claimed to have led a “global launch” was found to have overseen only a regional rollout; the committee rejected the candidate despite an otherwise strong execution score. The lesson is clear: AMD’s hiring gate is calibrated to filter for candidates whose documented track record, quantified impact, and demonstrated ability to navigate AMD’s product complexity match the rigor of the company’s engineering culture.

Mistakes to Avoid

Most candidates fail because they treat the interview like a classroom exam. We are not looking for perfect textbook answers; we are looking for operators who can navigate ambiguity and drive silicon to market. When you recite generic frameworks, you signal that you have never shipped a product under real constraints.

  1. Ignoring the Hardware-Software Ecosystem

AMD does not exist in a vacuum. A fatal error is discussing product strategy without acknowledging the tight coupling between our GPU architectures, CPU roadmaps, and the software stacks like ROCm or drivers. If you propose a feature that requires unrealistic power budgets or ignores thermal design power limits, you are done. We need PMs who understand that every software decision has a hardware cost and vice versa.

  1. Vague Metrics Without Business Context

Candidates often throw around numbers like "increased engagement by 20%" without explaining the baseline or the trade-off. In the semiconductor space, a metric without a cost analysis is noise.

BAD: I improved the driver installation success rate by 15% using better UI flows.

GOOD: I reduced driver installation failures by 15% by restructuring the dependency check logic, which cut support ticket volume by 3,000 per quarter and saved the division $200k in annual OpEx, despite adding two weeks to the validation cycle.

  1. Treating Competitors as Abstract Concepts

When asked about NVIDIA or Intel, do not give surface-level marketing talking points. We know their press releases. We need you to dissect their silicon decisions, their supply chain bottlenecks, and where their software moats are leaking. If you cannot articulate exactly where MI300 wins against H100 in a specific workload and why a customer would care, you lack the strategic depth we require.

  1. Over-Reliance on User Research for Technical Trade-offs

In consumer apps, you can A/B test your way to a solution. In high-performance computing, you cannot. A common mistake is suggesting extensive user testing for low-level architectural decisions that require engineering intuition and simulation data.

BAD: I would run a survey with 500 data center admins to decide if we should prioritize FP8 precision over memory bandwidth.

GOOD: I analyzed workload traces from our top five hyperscaler customers, modeled the throughput gains of FP8 versus the latency penalty of reduced bandwidth, and recommended prioritizing FP8 for AI training clusters while maintaining bandwidth for inference workloads.

  1. Failing to Own the Failure

When we ask about a product that missed the mark, do not blame engineering delays or market shifts. We hire leaders who own the outcome. If you deflect responsibility, we assume you will do the same when a tape-out slips or a yield issue arises. Admit the misjudgment, explain the root cause in technical terms, and detail the process change you implemented to ensure it never happened again.

Preparation Checklist

  1. Deconstruct AMD's current product portfolio across EPYC, Ryzen, Radeon, and Instinct MI300 series accelerators. You must be able to articulate the technical and strategic trade-offs of chiplet architecture versus monolithic designs, and how these decisions affect manufacturing yields, packaging complexity, and gross margins.
  1. Map out the competitive dynamics between AMD, Nvidia, and Intel across client, data center, and enterprise AI. Be prepared to discuss developer ecosystem strategies, specifically how AMD can close the software moat gap using the ROCm open-source framework against Nvidia's proprietary CUDA platform.
  1. Benchmark your response structure against the PM Interview Playbook to ensure your product design, strategy, and execution frameworks are synthesized for highly technical hardware and platform audiences rather than generic consumer software templates.
  1. Rehearse your answers to core amd pm interview questions using real-world scenarios of managing cross-functional dependencies with engineering, supply chain, and external foundry partners like TSMC. At AMD, execution is the primary metric; you must demonstrate how you handle wafer allocation constraints and platform roadmap delays.
  1. Master the unit economics of the semiconductor business model. You need to confidently calculate average selling prices, gross margins, and return on design-in investments for major hyperscaler or OEM accounts.
  1. Conduct timed mock interviews focused on system design and hardware-software integration. Candidates who fail at AMD typically do so because their technical depth is superficial; you must be able to explain how hardware accelerators interface with modern LLM workloads at the silicon level.

FAQ

Q1

The most common amd pm interview questions focus on product lifecycle mastery, cross‑functional leadership, and data‑driven decision making. Expect scenario‑based queries like how you’d prioritize a conflicting feature set, design a go‑to‑market plan for a new GPU, or measure success metrics post‑launch. Interviewers also probe your familiarity with AMD’s architecture roadmap and how you align product strategy with silicon capabilities.

Q2

Prepare for amd pm interview questions by building a portfolio of concrete product stories that showcase end‑to‑end ownership, metric‑focused outcomes, and stakeholder alignment. Study AMD’s recent product launches, roadmap announcements, and competitive positioning to speak fluently about market dynamics. Practice the STAR method for behavioral prompts, and rehearse quantitative exercises—such as TAM sizing, pricing elasticity, and trade‑off analysis—under timed conditions to demonstrate both strategic thinking and analytical rigor.

Q3

Successful candidates distinguish themselves in amd pm interview questions by linking product decisions to AMD’s silicon roadmap and revenue goals, rather than offering generic product management clichés. They demonstrate deep technical empathy—understanding GPU architecture trade‑offs—and back their recommendations with data, such as benchmark improvements or cost‑per‑performance ratios. Finally, they convey a clear vision for market impact, showing how their roadmap will drive adoption and sustain competitive advantage.

Want to systematically prepare for PM interviews?

Read the full playbook on Amazon →

Need the companion prep toolkit? The PM Interview Prep System includes frameworks, mock interview trackers, and a 30-day preparation plan.

Related Reading