Interview guides · Acumatica

Acumatica Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Caching practice for Acumatica software engineer prep: settle the staleness budget before choosing an invalidation strategy.

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at Acumatica plays a pivotal role in developing and enhancing cloud-based business management solutions that empower companies to drive their growth and efficiency. This position is crucial as it directly impacts the quality and functionality of Acumatica's software products, which serve a diverse range of industries. You will be tasked with building scalable, robust, and user-friendly applications that meet the evolving demands of users while maintaining high standards of performance and security.

Seniority moves the scope further than the words in the title do. An earlier-career loop mostly checks that you implement something correctly and can reason about its cost, while a senior loop checks that you can pick between two defensible designs and say what you gave up.

Focus areas

Build at-least-once pipelines with explicit deduplication horizons
Keep money in integer minor units
Scope every query and cache key by tenant

Overview

In this role, you will contribute to various projects that involve innovative technologies and methodologies. You will work within cross-functional teams, collaborating closely with product owners, UX/UI designers, and other engineers to deliver solutions that not only meet user needs but also align with business objectives. The work environment is dynamic and fast-paced, providing ample opportunities for professional growth and skill development in areas such as.NET, cloud computing, and database management.

The Acumatica interview process

Acumatica candidates report 5 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening Call

The person on this call usually cannot evaluate your code and does not need to. They write a short paragraph, and that paragraph is what a hiring manager skims when deciding who to put on your loop. So the test is not whether your work was hard, it is whether a non-engineer can repeat it correctly. Name systems by what they did rather than by their internal codename, give each project a shape (what was breaking, what you changed, what happened after), and keep the whole walkthrough near ninety seconds. Depth that cannot survive a paraphrase reads as vagueness.

What to demonstrate

Whether a non-engineer can restate your projects without distorting them, since their paraphrase is what travels to the hiring manager, not your sentences
Whether each project has a shape rather than a stack list: the failure or constraint, the change you made, the result and how it was measured
Whether you can say what was yours inside a team project without either inflating it or disappearing into the plural

How to prepare

Rewrite each headline project as two sentences with no internal system names and no acronyms outside your company, then say them to someone outside engineering and have them repeat them back. Fix whatever came back wrong
Attach one measured number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where nothing was ever measured, say that plainly rather than reaching for a plausible percentage
Time the background walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role to a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one

Technical Interviews

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Behavioral Questions

Many of these questions are about something that went wrong, and the grading sits mostly in the hours after you knew. Who found out first, whether that was you or an alert or a user, how long it took you to say it out loud, and whether the people who needed the news got it while they could still act on it. Engineers under-tell this part because it feels like confessing. The pattern it is looking for is the opposite: the quiet fix, an incident absorbed without telling anyone, after which nothing changed and the same failure is still available.

What to demonstrate

How the problem was found, and whether that route was one you had built or one that happened to you, since a user reporting it first means your instrumentation did not cover that failure
Whether time-to-detect and time-to-tell are separate numbers in your account and whether you know both, because a fast fix that nobody heard about until the retro is a different answer from a slow one that was announced immediately
Whether the resolution left something durable behind, a check that fires or a default that changed, rather than depending on people remembering to be careful
Whether you can say what the failure cost without either inflating it or waving it away

How to prepare

Reconstruct one incident you were part of as a timeline with clock times: first bad request, first signal, first person who knew, first message outside the team, mitigation, permanent fix. The gaps between those entries are what gets asked about
Look up the configuration of the signal that caught it, including its evaluation window and threshold. An alert defined on a five-minute aggregate cannot fire until the condition holds across that window, which puts a floor under time-to-detect that has nothing to do with how severe the failure was. Be able to say what that floor was and whether anyone had chosen it deliberately
Prepare one story where you escalated early and the severity turned out to be smaller than you thought, including what it cost the people you pulled in. Without it, every answer you give about raising alarms is unfalsifiable

Online Assessments

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Live Coding Interviews

Most of the time lost in this format is not lost to thinking. It goes to a standard-library call you half-remember, an off-by-one in a loop bound, and a debugging loop that mutates code at random until something passes. When output is wrong, stop re-reading the whole function: take the smallest input that reproduces it and walk the state through by hand, printing intermediates if the environment allows. Guessing at a fix without a failing case you understand is how a five-minute bug becomes twenty, and the clock does not pause while you do it.

What to demonstrate

Whether you reach the right structure without a detour, and can write it from memory rather than only recall that one exists
Whether overflow is considered where the language has fixed-width integers, since a signed 32-bit value stops at 2,147,483,647 and then wraps in Java, is undefined behaviour in C++, and does not arise in Python, whose integers grow instead
Whether recursion depth is treated as a constraint on large inputs, given that CPython's default limit is 1000 frames and a deep recursion can exhaust the stack in any language where an iterative version would not
Whether a failing case is isolated and explained before any edit is made to the code

How to prepare

From an empty file and with no references open, implement the pieces you lean on most: a heap push and pop, an iterative DFS with an explicit stack, and a binary search whose midpoint is written lo + (hi - lo) / 2, which avoids the overflow that (lo + hi) / 2 can hit in a fixed-width integer type
Time yourself on the ten library calls you look up most, such as sorting with a custom comparator, splitting and joining strings, and finding the next key at or above a value in an ordered map, until the lookup is gone
Take a solution you know is broken and, before touching it, write one sentence naming the input, the expected value and the actual value. Repeat until you do it without deciding to.

Where candidates lose points

Treating a timed-out write as a failed write

A timeout says the response did not arrive, not that the work did not happen; the server may well have committed and then lost the connection. Retrying a non-idempotent create after a timeout is the standard way to end up with two of something, and those duplicates land precisely when the system is already degraded and least able to absorb them. The discipline is to treat a timeout as unknown: either the write carries an idempotency key so the retry is safe by construction, or the client re-reads authoritative state before deciding what to do, and the interface says unknown rather than showing a failure that invites a second click.

Checking a quota with a select and then writing

Under read-committed isolation, two concurrent transactions both observe a count below the limit and both insert, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency. Repeatable read does not rescue it either: it provides a stable snapshot, and this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. The options are serialisable isolation, which detects the conflict and aborts one transaction with a serialisation failure and therefore obliges the caller to retry; a single statement with the predicate inside the write; or a constraint that makes the surplus insert fail outright. The reason this pattern survives review is that it is correct in every test that runs one request at a time.

Starting work without saying what you are about to spend time on

State the plan before executing it: the approach, roughly how long it will take, and what you intend to leave hand-waved. That gives the interviewer a chance to redirect you in ten seconds rather than watching you spend fifteen minutes on the wrong sub-problem.

Issuing one query per row of a result set

Fetch related rows in a single batched query keyed by the ids you already hold, or join them into the original query. A per-row round trip multiplies network latency by the row count, and it looks perfectly fine against the ten rows in your development database.

Questions & practice

Write a function to reverse a linked list.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

Follow-up

Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Given a list of integers, find the two numbers that add up to a specific target.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.

Follow-up

Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Solve a problem involving recursion and explain your thought process.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.

Follow-up

How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

Easy · parsing · hmac · constant-time-compare · replay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach

Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.

Worked solution (15 min)

Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
Implement the parser to return {t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missing t, a duplicate t, any v1 that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs.
Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsed v1, and OR the results with no early exit.
Test with a valid signature; the same body with t moved 400 seconds into the past; the same body with t 400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknown v2= alongside a valid v1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.

Expected result: The valid case accepts. Both out-of-tolerance cases reject, including the future one. The unknown v2 field is ignored and the v1 still verifies. The re-serialised body fails, which is correct and is exactly why the raw bytes must be retained.

Verify it yourself

Timing the comparison over 10,000 mismatching signatures that differ at the first character versus the last shows no separation you can measure.
Removing t from the MAC input makes an old captured body with its original signature pass. Write that test, watch it pass, then put t back.
Every rejection except the signature mismatch itself returns before an HMAC is computed.

Follow-up

The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Find the join that inflates every invoice total

Medium · join fan-out · aggregation grain · sql correctness

invoice_line_item holds line_id, invoice_id, tenant_id, sku, rate_tier, quantity, unit_price_micros, amount_minor (bigint), currency, kind, voided_at. invoice_payment_attempt holds attempt_id, invoice_id, tenant_id, amount_minor, status (succeeded, failed, pending), created_at, and an invoice has many attempts. A finance report runs select i.invoice_id, sum(l.amount_minor), count(p.attempt_id) from invoice i join invoice_line_item l using (invoice_id) join invoice_payment_attempt p using (invoice_id) group by 1 and the totals are wrong. Say precisely what the sum now equals, and write a version that is also correct for invoices with zero attempts.

Approach

Compute what the query actually returns before fixing it. The two joins form a Cartesian product per invoice, so each line row repeats once per attempt row: sum(l.amount_minor) is the true total multiplied by the attempt count, and count(p.attempt_id) is attempts times lines. Three lines and two attempts report double the money and six attempts.
Reject the reflex repair. count(distinct p.attempt_id) does fix the count, because attempt_id is unique. sum(distinct l.amount_minor) does not fix the sum, because two legitimate lines with equal amounts collapse into one. DISTINCT inside an aggregate deduplicates values, not rows, and the difference stays invisible until two lines happen to match.
Aggregate each branch to invoice grain before joining: one CTE summing lines by invoice_id, one counting attempts by invoice_id, then join the two results. A LATERAL subquery per invoice is equivalent and sometimes plans better when the outer set is small. Either way every aggregate stays at the grain it was defined at.
Keep invoices with no attempts by making the attempt branch a LEFT JOIN with coalesce(attempt_count, 0). An inner join here silently drops every unpaid invoice, which is usually the exact population finance is asking about.
Push each filter to its own grain: where l.voided_at is null belongs inside the line CTE, not the outer query, or it would also filter the attempt branch through the join. Put the tenant predicate on both branches, since the denormalised tenant_id is what stops a wrong join crossing tenants.
Leave yourself a standing check: an invoice total is a function of its non-voided lines and of nothing about payments, so if changing the payment filter moves the money figure, the fan-out is back.

Worked solution (25 min)

Create one invoice with three lines of 1000, 1000 and 500 minor units and two payment attempts, then run the original query.
Confirm it reports 5000 and 6 rather than 2500 and 2.
Apply sum(distinct l.amount_minor) and confirm the total becomes 1500, which is worse rather than better.
Write the two-CTE version with a LEFT JOIN and coalesce, and confirm 2500 and 2.
Add a second invoice with lines and no attempts and confirm it still appears.

Expected result: The original sum equals the true line total multiplied by the number of payment attempts and the count equals attempts times lines; the corrected query pre-aggregates each branch to invoice grain in separate CTEs and LEFT JOINs them with coalesce, with voided lines excluded inside the line CTE and the tenant predicate applied to both branches.

Verify it yourself

The money total is unchanged by adding or removing payment attempts.
An invoice with zero attempts appears with its total and a zero count.
Two lines with identical amounts both contribute to the total.
Voiding a line changes the money figure and leaves the attempt count alone.

Follow-up

Add a third branch for credit notes applied to the invoice. Does the CTE shape still hold, and when would a single pass with filter (where ...) be better?
Over 500k invoices this report takes minutes. Which grain would you materialise, and how do you keep it correct when a line is voided?
The same report is needed per tenant per month. What index makes the line CTE cheap?

Model credential revocation so history survives the delete

Easy · soft delete · partial indexes · check constraints · audit history

tenant_api_key stores key_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, name, key_prefix, secret_hash, scopes text[], status (active, revoked, expired, compromised), auth_version, created_at, expires_at, last_used_at, revoked_at, revoked_reason. Rotation inserts a new row and revocation never deletes, because an incident review asks which credential served a request last quarter. Write the constraints that enforce: a label is unique only among a tenant's live keys, revoked_at and status can never disagree, and scopes is never empty. Then write the authentication lookup predicate, and name one column in this table that must stay out of it.

Approach

Reach for a partial unique index rather than a plain UNIQUE: create unique index on tenant_api_key (tenant_id, name) where revoked_at is null. Any number of revoked rows may share a label, the live namespace stays unique per tenant, and the revoked majority is not in the index at all, so it stays small on a table that only grows.
Tie the nullable timestamp to the enum so the two cannot drift: check ((revoked_at is not null) = (status in ('revoked','compromised'))) and check ((revoked_at is null) = (revoked_reason is null)). A revocation that records no reason is the one an incident review cannot use.
Write the emptiness check as check (cardinality(scopes) > 0), not array_length(scopes, 1) > 0. array_length returns NULL for an empty array, a CHECK constraint passes when its expression is NULL, so the array_length version accepts exactly the value it was written to reject.
Make the lookup a single index probe with every liveness condition inside it: where secret_hash = $1 and revoked_at is null and (expires_at is null or expires_at > now()) and auth_version = $2, backed by a unique index on secret_hash. Nothing is filtered in application code, so there is no path that forgets a clause.
Keep last_used_at out of that predicate. It is written asynchronously and is allowed to lag by a minute, so it is a usage signal; feeding it into an authorisation decision makes the decision depend on a write that may be late, batched away or lost.
Flag the modelling smell while you are here: expired is derivable from expires_at < now(), so storing it as a status obliges a job to keep it true and guarantees the column is wrong between the expiry instant and that job's next run. Derive it in the predicate; keep the stored status for states that are decisions rather than clock readings.

Follow-up

Rotation issues a replacement while the old key stays live for a 30-day overlap. What does the uniqueness rule become, and what does the UI show to tell two same-named keys apart?
A password reset bumps the principal's auth_version. No row in this table changed. How does the next request fail, and what query counts how many keys that bump just killed?
A key turns up in a public repository. Which columns let you find it, and what do you write to the row?

Describe how you would implement a microservices architecture for a complex application.

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.

Follow-up

What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

How would you design a system that can handle millions of transactions per second?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?

What considerations would you take into account when designing an API?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.

Follow-up

What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
What would you drop to keep the system up under load?

If you were given a legacy system to upgrade, what steps would you take?

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.

Follow-up

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

Write the delivery guarantee and replay API for outbound events

Medium · webhooks · at-least-once · ordering

The webhook-delivery service fans events to customer endpoints, tracked in webhook_delivery (subscription_id, tenant_id, event_id, redelivery_seq, status, attempt_count, next_attempt_at, lease_token, last_response_code, payload_digest). Customers are asking for exactly-once and in-order delivery. Write the contract you can actually honour: the guarantee, the headers that make it usable, which customer response codes are retryable, the retry schedule and terminal condition, what happens to an endpoint that has been down for a day, and the shape of the redelivery endpoint. State plainly what you are not promising and what the customer must do instead.

Approach

Refuse exactly-once with the mechanism rather than with policy: the customer's acknowledgement can be lost after they have already committed, so the sender cannot distinguish unprocessed from processed-but-unacknowledged and must retry. The deliverable is at-least-once with a stable event identifier and the customer documented as the deduplicating party.
Price ordering instead of promising it. With parallel attempts per subscription, a retried event overtakes a newer one, so in-order delivery requires a single in-flight attempt per subscription, which turns any slow endpoint into head-of-line blocking for that subscription's whole queue. Offer it per subscription with that cost written down.
Define the response contract from the customer's side: 2xx is accepted, 408, 429 and 5xx are retryable, 410 disables the subscription, and every other 4xx is permanent and terminal. Publish the read timeout and tell the customer to acknowledge first and process asynchronously, since their processing time otherwise consumes your worker occupancy.
Publish the schedule and its end: capped exponential backoff with full jitter, sleeping uniformly in [0, min(cap, base * 2^attempt)] so a mass failure does not re-synchronise the herd, terminal after a stated attempt count or age, plus a per-endpoint circuit breaker that records further deliveries as dropped_circuit_open and notifies the owner rather than burning shared worker capacity.
Shape redelivery as an insert, not a reset: POST to a redeliveries collection with event ids or a time window creates rows at redelivery_seq + 1 carrying the same bytes, which payload_digest lets you prove, leaving the original terminal rows intact as the record of what happened.
Compare the event's tenant against the subscription's tenant at enqueue and again immediately before signing, because cross-tenant delivery originates in an enqueue path that took the subscription from one lookup and the payload from another, not in the worker.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the guarantee sentence and the one-sentence reason exactly-once is not available over HTTP.
List the headers a customer needs to build their own dedup table: event id, delivery id, attempt number, subscription id, signature and timestamp.
Write the response-code table with four classes and the action for each, including the 410 case.
Write the retry schedule with concrete numbers, the terminal condition, and the breaker's threshold and its effect on the delivery row's status.
Specify the redelivery request and response, and say which columns change and which do not.

Expected result: At-least-once with a stable event id, ordering offered only as an opt-in single-in-flight mode with head-of-line blocking stated, a four-class response table, a jittered capped schedule with a terminal state, and redelivery implemented as new rows at an incremented sequence carrying identical bytes.

Verify it yourself

The customer can deduplicate using headers alone, without parsing the payload.
Nothing in the contract requires the sender to know whether the customer committed.
A day-long outage has a defined end state rather than unbounded retries.
Redelivery leaves the original delivery rows readable as history.

Follow-up

A customer wants everything they missed during their six-hour outage. Do the dropped_circuit_open rows let you answer that, and what retention bound does the answer depend on?
You offer the ordered mode and one customer's endpoint slows to two seconds per request. What do their delivery metrics look like, and what do you owe them in the docs?

Invoice detail latency triples after an ORM relationship refactor

Easy · n+1 query · orm · latency regression

An invoice detail endpoint returned in 40 ms at p99 last week. After a refactor replaced a hand-written join with ORM relationship access it returns in 1.4 s, and the regression grows with the number of invoice_line_item rows on the invoice. Database CPU rose, but no statement in the slow-query log exceeds 3 ms. You have request traces with per-span SQL, the ORM statement log, and a staging copy of the data. Produce an ordered diagnostic checklist, the measurement that confirms the cause before any code change, and the fix.

Approach

Count statements per request before reading any statement duration. A slow-query log hides this class by construction, because every individual query is fast and only their number is wrong; take one trace and count SQL spans.
Establish proportionality rather than asserting it: sample invoices with 5, 20, 60 and 200 line items and plot statements per request against line count. A straight line of slope 1 through an intercept of one or two identifies a lazy relationship load, and no index or cache would move that line.
Locate the emitting attribute access in the refactored code and check whether the same shape repeats one level deeper, for instance a tax or adjustment collection hanging off each line, which turns the cost quadratic.
Fix with a bounded statement count: either one join that fetches invoice and lines together, or two statements where the second is WHERE invoice_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $2. Keep tenant_id in the predicate so the read stays tenant-scoped even though invoice_id already implies it.
Choose between the two deliberately: the join duplicates the wide parent row across N children on the wire, the two-statement form avoids that for one extra round trip. Prefer the join for narrow parents and the split for wide ones.
Pin it with a per-request statement-count assertion in a test that varies line count, because a latency assertion passes on a small fixture and would not have caught this.

Follow-up

The endpoint now also needs per-line tax rows. Show the shape that keeps statement count constant instead of reintroducing the same defect one level down.
How does this change if a transaction-pooling proxy sits between the service and the database, so each statement may land on a different backend session?
The same page paginates invoices with LIMIT and OFFSET. Why is that a second, independent defect, and what replaces it?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly ninety minutes on weeknights with one longer weekend block. The plan cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that one thing finished per night beats four half-started.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and take a cold baseline

Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list and keep it visible all week.
Take one twenty-five-minute coding problem and one fifteen-minute design prompt cold, and write the single sentence naming what blocked each, because those two sentences decide where the remaining evenings go.
Set the week's rule: one thing finished every night, including the night you only have forty minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with a not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Day 2 — One pattern, written three times from blank

Choose the single pattern most likely to appear in your loop and write it three times from an empty file rather than editing the previous attempt.
On the third pass, write the invariant as a comment before the loop body and the complexity before the first line of code.
Stop at ninety minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix given another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent implementations of the same pattern plus a note on what changed between them.

Day 3 — One design, only to the depth you can defend

Take one system shape and go only as far as requirements, interface and data model, refusing to draw a box you could not survive a follow-up about.
Attach one number to each non-functional requirement, deriving it rather than asserting it, and write the assumption the number rests on.
Write the one tradeoff you are choosing against and the observation that would make you reverse it.

Deliverable: One design at interface-and-schema depth with derived numbers and one written reversible tradeoff.

Day 4 — Only the fundamentals you will have to defend

Write, in under two hundred words each, the answers to the two questions that follow almost any implementation: why this structure and not the obvious alternative, and what happens to this code at a hundred times the input.
Write what an index actually costs: faster lookups on the indexed columns against a write that now maintains a second structure, plus the cases where the planner declines to use it anyway, low selectivity, or a predicate wrapping the column in a function.
Delete any answer you cannot deliver aloud in under a minute, since an answer that needs reading is not an answer you have.

Deliverable: Three written answers, each under two hundred words and each timed aloud.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

Write a ninety-second and a four-minute version of your main project and time both aloud rather than reading them.
Prepare the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
Put one number in the first sentence and be ready to say exactly where it came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Day 6 — The one full rehearsal, in the weekend block

Run a sixty-minute mock covering a coding round and a design round in one sitting with no break, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Day 7 — Taper

Write the twenty-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning: one problem you can already solve from a blank file, one design you can narrate, and nothing you have never seen.
Re-read only your own notes from this week and open no new material.
Write the logistics down: the editor or shared document you will be working in, whether execution and lookups are permitted, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the design structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

The estimate and the day you knew

A slipped date is only a bad story if you sat on it. What matters is what you believed when you gave the number, the signal that told you it was wrong, how many days passed before you said so, and what you cut rather than asking for more time. Scope you defended counts as much as scope you dropped.

What motivates you to perform well in your role?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

Give an example of how you have worked collaboratively in a team setting.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Ship metered billing with a named deduplication horizon

Medium · technical debt · deduplication · deadline pressure · detectors

Metered billing must be on in three weeks. usage_event is partitioned daily, so its unique index must include the partition key and deduplicates only within a day: a producer retry that crosses midnight, or a replay run a week later, gets through. A cross-partition dedup store is two weeks you do not have. Describe shipping with debt you named in advance: what you shipped, what you wrote down, the detector you added, the trigger and date for paying it off, and what you would have refused to ship under the same pressure.

Approach

Show you can separate the two kinds of debt, because that distinction is what the question actually probes. Debt that costs engineering time later is shippable on a deadline. Debt that silently corrupts a number a customer gets charged for is not shippable unless the corruption is detectable, and detectability is the whole negotiation.
Make the exposure narrow and measured rather than gestural. The hole is duplicates whose occurrences straddle a UTC day boundary, plus any replay older than partition retention. Measure it before arguing about it: how often an idempotency_key recurs at all, and the distribution of the gap between first and last occurrence. If the ninety-ninth percentile of that gap is four minutes, the residual risk is a small band around midnight and you can say so numerically.
Add the detector before the feature, not after. A nightly job counting keys that appear in more than one partition is one grouped scan over recent partitions, and it converts a silent overcount into a page. State what it costs to run and what it fires on.
Buy the cheap half of the real fix immediately: extend partition retention so the dedup horizon exceeds the producer's maximum retry window plus the longest replay you intend to support. That reframes retention as a correctness parameter rather than a storage cost, which is the sentence you need on record before someone optimises the bill.
Make repayment mechanical instead of aspirational: a dated entry with a named owner, plus a threshold that pulls the date forward — first detector hit above N events, or first customer dispute. Debt with a trigger gets paid; debt with only a date does not.
Answer the second half honestly by naming what you would refuse under identical pressure: the sealing path, because a sealed row is frozen and a wrong number there stops being a bug and becomes an adjustment line, a dispute and an audit question.

Follow-up

The detector fires on forty duplicate events for one tenant, and two of their invoices have already sealed. What happens next?
Whom did you tell that the billing numbers had a known hole, and in what words?
Finance asks you to cut storage by shortening partition retention. What do you say, and to whom?