Interview guides · A healthcare data

A healthcare data Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

SQL practice for A healthcare data data scientist candidates: window functions, funnel and retention queries, joins that quietly drop rows.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at A healthcare data, you operate at the critical intersection of clinical insight and advanced analytics. Your role is to transform complex, high-volume healthcare datasets into actionable intelligence that improves patient outcomes and streamlines operational efficiency. You are not merely building models; you are solving problems that directly impact the quality of care and the sustainability of health systems.

Allocate prep to your weakest link rather than your favourite topic. Of the three things that usually gate the outcome (SQL that is correct under messy joins, sound reasoning about experiments, and structured framing of an open-ended problem), candidates tend to over-invest in modelling theory and under-invest in framing.

Focus areas

Reconstruct drug exposure intervals from dispensing records
Separate censoring from events in time-to-event models
Build member-month denominators from overlapping coverage spans

Overview

You will collaborate with cross-functional teams, including product managers, clinical experts, and data engineers, to deploy scalable solutions. Whether optimizing logistics, refining diagnostic algorithms, or analyzing patient journeys, your work provides the analytical backbone for the company’s strategic decisions. This role demands a balance of rigorous technical execution and the ability to translate technical findings into business-critical narratives.

The role requires a high degree of adaptability. You should be prepared to discuss not only your technical stack but also your ability to navigate the transition toward agile, flexible operations in a fast-paced environment.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

Immortal time in adherence, treatment, and enrolment definitions

Classifying members as adherent, treated, or programme-enrolled requires them to survive and stay covered long enough to accumulate the defining events. That guaranteed event-free interval is assigned to the exposed group, so the exposure looks protective for reasons that have nothing to do with the treatment. Adherence studies are the classic case: measuring 12-month proportion of days covered and then comparing mortality builds survival into the exposure definition. Use time-varying exposure or a landmark analysis with the classification window excluded from follow-up.

Pre-post evaluation on a high-cost or high-risk cohort

Cohorts selected on an extreme value of the outcome regress toward the mean on their own. Members identified as the top 1 percent of spend in one year spend far less the next, whether or not anyone intervenes, because the selecting year captured both chronic severity and one-off events. A pre-post design on such a cohort will report savings every time. A concurrent comparison group selected by the same rule in the same period, or a regression discontinuity at the selection threshold, is the minimum credible design.

Answering a product-sense question with a list of features

Answer with a decision and the measurement that would settle it: the hypothesis, the primary metric, the guardrails, and the result that would make you not ship. A feature brainstorm cannot be wrong, which is exactly why it earns no points.

Crediting a treatment for regression to the mean

Selecting a group because it is extreme (lowest-engagement users, accounts having their worst month, the bottom decile of a score) moves that group's expected next-period value back toward the average even under no treatment, by exactly as much as the selecting measure is imperfectly correlated with its own later value. Compare against units that met the same selection rule and went untreated, or use two pre-periods so the bounce-back is visible before the intervention starts. A pre-post number on a group chosen for being extreme measures the selection rule, not the treatment.

Questions & practice

Build a claims lag triangle and complete recent months

Medium · chain ladder · runout · pivot

medical_claim_line has claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code, service_start_date, paid_date, allowed_amount, claim_status. Using 24 fully mature incurred months, build a development triangle of allowed dollars by incurred month and payment lag in whole months, derive cumulative completion factors by chain ladder, then estimate ultimate allowed for the three most recent incurred months at a stated paid-through date. Deduplicate to surviving claim versions before building the triangle. Return incurred_month, paid_to_date, completion_factor, estimated_ultimate.

Approach

Deduplicate to surviving claim versions and keep paid lines first. A triangle built on all versions develops on adjustment churn rather than on payment timing, and replacements arrive late, so the distortion concentrates in exactly the tail you are trying to estimate.
Compute lag as a whole-month difference between incurred month and paid month, not as day difference divided by 30. Ragged month lengths otherwise shuffle identical claims between lag buckets depending on which month they fall in.
Pivot to incurred_month by lag, cumulate along lag, then form age-to-age factors as the ratio of the column L+1 total to the column L total, summed over incurred months mature enough to have both. Volume weighting is the chain ladder; a simple mean of per-month ratios lets one low-volume month dominate the factor.
Chain the age-to-age factors from each lag to ultimate and invert: completion factor at lag L is the reciprocal of the product of factors from L onward. Apply as estimated_ultimate = paid_to_date / completion_factor.
State the assumption you have just made, which is that the development pattern is stable. It is not, after a claims-system migration, a network change or a processing backlog, and the most recent month's factor is the least reliable because it rests on the fewest observations while carrying the largest adjustment.

Follow-up

A processing backlog means the last two months developed slower than history. What does your estimate do, and how would you detect that before reporting?
Pharmacy, professional and inpatient facility develop on different clocks. How do you split the triangle, and what breaks if the service mix shifts?
What happens to a PMPM series if someone reports an unadjusted recent month, and in which direction does the error point?

Sessionise transfer chains into episodes, then count readmissions

Hard · sessionisation · cumsum grouping · readmission

encounter has encounter_id, patient_id, facility_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts, admission_type, discharge_disposition, is_planned_admission, principal_diagnosis_code. Chain acute-to-acute transfers into episodes of care: an inpatient encounter discharged as transfer_acute, followed by another inpatient encounter for the same patient at a different facility admitting within 24 hours of that discharge, belongs to the same episode. Then compute the 30-day unplanned readmission rate over episodes, excluding index episodes that are planned, that end in expired, hospice or against medical advice, or that are still open. Return encounter_id to episode_id, plus the rate.

Approach

Restrict to inpatient encounters for the chaining step and sort by patient_id, admit_ts. Observation and emergency encounters are not acute inpatient stays and pooling them changes both the chain and the denominator.
Build a boolean continues flag: the previous row is the same patient, its discharge_disposition is transfer_acute, its facility_id differs from this row's, and admit_ts minus previous discharge_ts is between 0 and 24 hours. Episode id = cumsum of the negation of that flag. This is the vectorised form of a sessionisation loop and is why the pattern generalises to any event stream.
Collapse to episode grain taking first admit_ts, last discharge_ts, last discharge_disposition, and any() of is_planned_admission. The episode inherits its exit state, not its entry state, which is why a transfer chain ending at home is one home discharge rather than two transfers.
Apply index exclusions at episode grain. Dropping episodes that end in death is not optional: a dead patient cannot be readmitted, so leaving them in inflates the denominator and depresses the rate for exactly the panels caring for the sickest members.
For each surviving index episode, find the next unplanned acute inpatient episode for that patient admitting within 30 days of the index discharge_ts. Count events at episode grain, since one patient can contribute several index episodes. Report the raw rate and say plainly that it is not comparable across panels without risk adjustment, which is what the observed-over-expected form exists for.

Follow-up

discharge_ts is null on an open stay in the middle of a chain. What does your flag do, and what should it do?
A patient is transferred out and then back to the originating facility within 24 hours. Should that chain, and does your facility_id condition handle it?
Is a readmission itself eligible to serve as a later index episode? Say what you chose and what the choice does to the rate.

Collapse claim versions before summing allowed amounts by member

Easy · claim versioning · groupby · deduplication

You are given medical_claim_line as a pandas DataFrame: claim_line_id, claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code (1 original, 7 replacement, 8 void), member_id, service_start_date, procedure_code, allowed_amount, claim_status. Return total allowed_amount per member for service dates in one stated calendar month, counting each claim once at its surviving version and excluding any claim whose surviving version is a void. Multi-line claims must keep every line of that surviving version. Output columns: member_id, allowed_amount, sorted descending. Do not deduplicate on claim_id alone.

Approach

Separate the two grains out loud before writing code: versions live at the claim level, dollars live at the line level. Every bug in this exercise comes from mixing them.
Compute the surviving version per claim with a groupby transform of max over claim_version, then keep the lines whose claim_version equals that value. A transform keeps the frame at line grain, which a sort plus head(1) does not.
Drop whole claims whose surviving version carries frequency_code 8. A void is not a zero-dollar line, it retracts the claim, so filtering rows rather than claims leaves the prior version's lines behind.
Filter to claim_status 'paid' and state the assumption: denied, pended and reversed lines carry an allowed_amount that never became a liability, so including them overstates cost.
Restrict service_start_date to the month boundaries, then groupby member_id and sum. Sort descending and return.

Worked solution (20 min)

Build a max-version lookup per claim_id with groupby('claim_id')['claim_version'].transform('max') and keep rows where claim_version equals it.
From the surviving rows, collect the claim_ids whose frequency_code is 8 and drop those claim_ids entirely.
Filter claim_status to 'paid' and service_start_date into the month window.
Group by member_id, sum allowed_amount, sort descending, reset the index.

Expected result: A two-column frame member_id, allowed_amount. On a claim with versions 1, 7, 7 only the third version's lines contribute; a claim whose latest version is frequency_code 8 appears nowhere. Total allowed is strictly below a naive sum over all rows whenever any claim in the sample was adjusted, and equal to it when none was.

Verify it yourself

The distinct claim_id count in your filtered frame equals the count of distinct claim_ids whose surviving version is not a void.
The line count you kept for each surviving claim equals that claim's line count at its max version, not 1.
A naive sum over every row is greater than or equal to your total, with equality only when no claim has claim_version above 1.

Follow-up

A claim has versions 1, 7, 7 where the second replacement has fewer lines than the first. What does your code return and is that correct?
How would you handle a claim whose lines span two calendar months at the boundary of the reporting window?
The same logic has to run over 400 million lines in a warehouse. What changes, and what stays the same?

Report site activation to first randomization without hiding non-enrollers

Medium · grain collapse · left join · censoring

study_site holds one row per (study_id, site_id): site_activation_date, which is NULL for a site selected but never activated, and site_status. study_subject_visit holds subject_visit_id, study_id, site_id, subject_id, randomization_ts (NULL for screen failures), visit_name, visit_number, actual_visit_date and visit_status, with one row per subject per protocol visit, so randomization_ts repeats across every visit of a randomized subject and a site that has screened nobody has no rows there at all. For one study_id and a stated data cut date, return per activated site the activation date, the first randomization_ts and the days between them, with activated sites that have randomized nobody still present. Add a study-level summary giving median days to first randomization and the share of activated sites with no randomization by day 90.

Approach

Take the site universe from study_site, never from study_subject_visit. The visit table can only contain sites that have screened at least one subject, so a universe built from DISTINCT site_id there omits exactly the sites this metric exists to expose. Filter study_site to the study and to site_activation_date IS NOT NULL, then LEFT JOIN the per-site first randomization.
Collapse the grain before aggregating anything on the visit side. The table repeats randomization_ts across every visit of a randomized subject, so any count taken at row grain is inflated by visits per subject. MIN(randomization_ts) per site is safe, COUNT is not.
State the date boundary rule. randomization_ts is a timestamp and site_activation_date is a date, so a randomization at 23:40 local time can land on either side of a day boundary depending on the zone the timestamp is stored in. Cast once, deliberately, and say which zone.
Use PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY days) for the median and be explicit that it ignores NULLs, so it is a median over enrolling sites only. That is exactly why the non-enroller share is reported beside it rather than instead of it.
Censor the day-90 denominator against the data cut. A site activated 40 days before the cut has not had 90 days to randomize, so it cannot be scored on that bar and belongs outside that denominator.

Worked solution (25 min)

CTE sites: site_id and site_activation_date from study_site for the study where site_activation_date IS NOT NULL. The (study_id, site_id) key already gives one activation date per site, so assert that key rather than de-duplicating defensively.
CTE first_rand: site_id and MIN(randomization_ts) over study_subject_visit rows for the study where randomization_ts IS NOT NULL, grouped by site_id.
LEFT JOIN sites to first_rand and compute days_to_first_randomization with an explicit cast of the timestamp to a date.
Summary: PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) over non-null days, plus the count and share of sites with no randomization by day 90, restricted to sites activated at least 90 days before the data cut.
Compare the site-level row count with COUNT(DISTINCT site_id) in study_subject_visit for the study; the difference is the activated sites that have screened nobody, which is the population the metric is for.

Expected result: One row per activated site with site_id, site_activation_date, first_randomization_ts and days_to_first_randomization, NULL in both randomization columns for sites that have randomized nobody, including sites with no study_subject_visit rows at all; plus one summary row with median_days_over_enrolling_sites, sites_activated_90d_or_more and share_with_no_randomization_by_day_90.

Verify it yourself

Site-level row count equals the number of study_site rows for the study with a non-null site_activation_date, and is greater than or equal to COUNT(DISTINCT site_id) in study_subject_visit for that study. Below it means either an activated site is missing from study_site or a visit row carries a site_id whose activation date is NULL, both data-quality findings.
No days_to_first_randomization is negative. A negative value is a data-quality finding to raise, not a number to clamp at zero.
The day-90 denominator excludes sites activated within 90 days of the data cut. Including them can only add sites that have not had a full 90 days, and any of those without a randomization would be miscounted as a failure.

Follow-up

The same site_id appears under two studies. What breaks, and what is the correct grain for this metric?
Would you present this as a median, as a Kaplan-Meier curve of time to first randomization, or both, and what does the curve show that the median cannot?
A site randomized one subject who withdrew at visit 2. Does that site count as enrolling here, and how does that differ from a randomized-and-retained measure?

Find inpatient encounters with no resulted lab during the stay

Medium · anti-join · null semantics · event matching

encounter holds encounter_id, patient_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts and facility_id. lab_result holds result_id, order_id, patient_id, encounter_id (NULL for outpatient standing orders), loinc_code, specimen_collected_ts, resulted_ts and result_status. Return every inpatient encounter discharged in 2025 with no final or corrected lab_result linked to it. A colleague wrote WHERE encounter_id NOT IN (SELECT encounter_id FROM lab_result) and got zero rows back. Say why, write the correct query, then say what changes when labs must instead be matched on patient_id with the specimen collected between admit_ts and discharge_ts.

Approach

Name the mechanism rather than the symptom. x NOT IN (subquery) expands to x <> y1 AND x <> y2 AND ..., and a single NULL y makes that chain UNKNOWN, never TRUE. Since lab_result.encounter_id is nullable by design for standing orders, this query can only ever return zero rows.
Rewrite as NOT EXISTS, or LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter. Both treat a NULL key as no match rather than as unknown. Adding IS NOT NULL inside the NOT IN subquery also works, but NOT EXISTS is the habit that survives someone making another column nullable later.
Put the result_status predicate inside the correlated subquery or the ON clause, not in an outer WHERE. Outside, it turns the anti-join back into an inner join and an encounter whose only labs were cancelled disappears instead of qualifying.
For the timestamp variant, match on patient_id with specimen_collected_ts inside the stay rather than resulted_ts. A specimen drawn an hour before discharge can result the next day, and anchoring on resulted_ts would wrongly call that stay lab-free.
Restrict to encounter_type 'inpatient' and discharge_ts in 2025, and report open encounters with a NULL discharge_ts as a separate count instead of letting the filter swallow them.

Follow-up

Write the LEFT JOIN form and say exactly where the result_status predicate must sit for the two forms to agree.
How would you separate encounters whose only labs were cancelled from encounters with no lab rows at all?
Some encounters carry member_id NULL because the person index did not match. What does that do to a payer-side version of this measure?

Explain the trade-offs between interpretability and accuracy in health-related predictive models.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?

How would you design an experiment to validate a new feature in a healthcare application?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.

Follow-up

What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

What is your approach to ensuring data privacy and ethical compliance when building models?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.

Follow-up

What assumption would you test first?
How would you know your answer was wrong?

Specify a readmission rate two parties will settle on

Easy · measure specification · exclusions · observed over expected · runout

A payer and a hospital group are writing a shared-savings term that settles on 30-day unplanned readmissions. You have encounter (encounter_id, patient_id, member_id, facility_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts, admission_type, discharge_disposition, is_planned_admission, index_encounter_id, drg_code, principal_diagnosis_code) and member_enrollment coverage spans. Produce the measure specification both sides sign: numerator, denominator, exclusion list, observation window, and the paid-through date at which a discharge month becomes reportable. State whether settlement is on the raw rate or an observed-over-expected ratio, and defend the choice.

Approach

Fix the unit of analysis first: the denominator is eligible index stays, not members and not patients. Say out loud that one member can contribute several index stays in a period, and that a readmission is itself eligible to become an index stay, because leaving that unstated is where two implementations diverge.
Write the exclusion list as a waterfall with a count at each step rather than a sentence: planned admissions (is_planned_admission TRUE), discharge_disposition in expired, hospice and ama, and stays whose discharge_disposition is transfer_acute, which are the first leg of one episode rather than an index stay that ended.
Add the exposure condition the encounter table cannot express on its own: an index stay only counts if the member has coverage in member_enrollment for the full 30 days after discharge_ts, with the allowable gap written in days. Without it, a disenrollment reads as a clean outcome.
Define the numerator join precisely: the earliest later inpatient encounter with is_planned_admission FALSE and admit_ts within 30 days of the index discharge_ts, at any facility_id, capped at one readmission per index stay so a single unstable member cannot dominate a facility's rate.
Set the maturity rule. Inpatient facility claims adjudicate slowest of any service type, so name a paid-through lag, put the paid-through date on the report header, and state that a discharge month is restated until it matures.
Settle on observed-over-expected and say why: raw rates confound case mix with care, and the expected model is fitted on age, sex and comorbidities drawn from the 12 months of claims before admit_ts, excluding diagnoses first coded during the index stay so complications of that stay do not inflate the facility's own expectation.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the eligible-index waterfall as a numbered list before touching any logic, with a placeholder count beside each line so the reviewer can see how much of the raw discharge volume each exclusion removes.
Write the numerator rule in one sentence including the tie-break for two admissions on the same day, and the one-readmission-per-index cap.
State the coverage requirement as a concrete filter: covered on every day from discharge_ts to discharge_ts + 30, allowable gap 0 days, evaluated against member_enrollment spans rather than a single active flag.
Name the paid-through lag and write the restatement policy: a discharge month is provisional until it matures and is republished at every refresh until then.
Write two sentences on why settlement is on O/E, including what risk adjustment does not fix, namely unrecorded severity and differences in social support at discharge.

Expected result: A one-page specification containing: an exclusion waterfall with a count at every step; a numerator counting at most one unplanned acute readmission per index stay within 30 days of discharge_ts at any facility; a 30-day continuous-coverage requirement with the allowable gap stated in days; a named paid-through lag with a restatement policy; and settlement on the observed-over-expected ratio with a confidence interval, on the stated ground that raw rates are not comparable across facilities with different case mix.

Verify it yourself

Recompute the raw rate with and without the transfer_acute exclusion. A facility that receives transfers should move materially; if nothing moves, the transfer legs are not being detected at all.
Compare the numerator count to the count of distinct encounters serving as a readmission. They should be equal; a larger numerator means one readmission is being credited to two index stays.
Re-run the same discharge month at two paid-through dates 60 days apart. A stable rate means the lag is long enough; a rate that climbs means it is not.
Confirm every excluded stay lands in exactly one exclusion bucket so the waterfall sums back to the raw discharge count.

Follow-up

A member transfers from one acute facility to another on day two of the stay. One episode or two, and which facility owns the outcome?
The hospital starts admitting borderline patients to observation status instead of inpatient. What happens to your numerator, your denominator and the rate, and which companion metric would show it?
Why would you refuse to report this rate for a facility with 40 eligible index stays in a quarter?

Allowed PMPM fell fourteen percent in three months

Easy · claims runout · completion factors · incurred vs paid

Allowed PMPM in the monthly series fell from $412 to $354 over the three most recent incurred months, and leadership wants to announce the saving. You have medical_claim_line (allowed_amount, service_start_date, received_date, paid_date, claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code, place_of_service_code), pharmacy_claim (allowed_amount, fill_date, reversal_flag) and member_enrollment coverage spans. The chart carries no paid-through date. Work out how much of the fall survives completion, and hand back a restated series with an explicit paid-through date and the completion factors you applied.

Approach

Get the paid-through date first and put it on the chart. Without it the series is uninterpretable, because every incurred month is a different age.
Build a lag triangle: for each incurred month, cumulative allowed_amount by the number of months between service_start_date and paid_date, on surviving claim versions only (drop frequency_code 8 voids and keep the highest claim_version per claim_id).
Estimate development factors separately for pharmacy fills, professional lines and inpatient facility lines. Pharmacy adjudicates within days, professional within weeks, inpatient facility over months, so one blended factor understates the correction on the newest month and overstates it on the oldest.
Gross each of the last three incurred months up by the reciprocal of its cumulative development factor, using factors fitted on months that have already fully run out.
Rebuild the denominator independently as member-months from coverage spans. Member-months are complete on day one, so if the denominator also shows a lag pattern the enrollment file is late, which is a different bug with a different fix.
Restate the series, mark the last three months as estimated, and report the residual movement after completion as the only part worth investigating.

Follow-up

The completed series still shows a three percent fall. What do you look at next, and in what order?
How would you detect that the fall is a mix shift toward cheaper services rather than lower volume?
A contract settles on this number at a fixed paid-through date. What do you owe the other party about the estimate you just made?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.

Day 1 — Design one test end to end on paper

Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.

Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.

Day 2 — Power arithmetic until it is automatic

Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.

Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.

Day 3 — Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem

Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.

Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.

Day 4 — Validity threats you can actually test for

Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.

Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.

Day 5 — When randomization is not available

Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.

Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.

Day 6 — The readout query

Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.

Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.

Day 7 — Present it to someone who will not read the appendix

Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.

Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.

What the behavioural round is actually scoring

Interviewers here are not checking whether you can describe a project. They want the decision you made, why you made it under the information you had, and what changed afterwards that someone else could measure. A story that ends at 'I built a model' has no ending. Say what the model caused, or what you stopped doing because of it.

Describe a time you had to optimize a model for production-level latency.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

How do you handle missing or noisy data in a clinical environment?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

Make an honest case for your own analytical impact

Hard · impact attribution · counterfactual · self-assessment

You are asked to account for a year of your work. Constraint: you may only use measures that existed before you knew the outcome, and you must include one project that moved nothing. The portfolio contains a measure specification that changed how a contract settles, a predictive model that shipped, a self-serve dashboard, and an evaluation that killed a proposed programme. Deliverable: how you attribute value to each, which of them you claim credit for and which you do not, and the one number you would accept being judged on next year.

Approach

The probe is whether you can reason counterfactually about your own work, which is the same discipline this domain demands of you for programmes, applied where it is uncomfortable.
State the counterfactual for each item: what would have happened without you. A measure specification that changed how a contract settles has a dollar counterfactual you can compute. A dashboard's counterfactual is analyst hours, which is real and small, and attaching a revenue number to it is where these accounts usually turn into fiction.
Treat the killed programme as your strongest item and say why. Avoided spend is real value, it is attributable because the decision turned on your evaluation, and it is the one item nobody else will count on your behalf.
Report the shipped model the way you would report anyone's model: calibration in the subgroups that matter, adoption by the people it was built for, and whether any decision changed. A model that is live but ignored has zero impact, and saying so is the credibility test in this answer.
Name the failed project with its mechanism and its cost, then say what earlier signal you would watch to kill it sooner. Time to kill is a legitimate impact measure.
Choose next year's number so that it can go down. A metric that only ratchets upward is not a commitment.

Follow-up

Two other people also claim the contract measure. How do you split it?
Your model is live and used, but the decisions it informs would have been the same without it. Is that impact?
What is the strongest argument that your year had less impact than you just described?