Interview guides · Advanced Energy

Advanced Energy Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Advanced Energy software engineer prep on operations: decide what you would need to see to know a release is going wrong.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Advanced Energy, you are at the intersection of high-precision power conversion and complex software architecture. You are not just writing code; you are building the intelligence that drives mission-critical systems in industries like semiconductor manufacturing, industrial production, and medical technology. Your work directly influences the performance, reliability, and precision of Advanced Energy power products.

Prepare in one language you know well enough to debug in rather than the one you think reads best. Under a clock an unfamiliar language costs you standard-library lookups and iteration mechanics, and that time comes out of your thinking budget, not your typing budget.

Focus areas

Reconcile a movement ledger against derived positions
Model units, lots and state machines precisely
Make every external side effect safe to retry

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of software proficiency and an appreciation for hardware constraints. Whether you are working on embedded firmware, high-level application development, or full-stack solutions, you will be solving problems where system stability and efficiency are paramount. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams, including electrical engineers and product managers, to translate complex power electronics requirements into scalable, robust software solutions.

The Advanced Energy interview process

Advanced Energy candidates report 4 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Recruiter Screen

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 Deep-Dive

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

Multi-Stage Experience

You cannot drill a format you do not know, so put the preparation into material that travels. Three pieces of your own work, each rehearsed until you can take a follow-up you did not anticipate, will carry a conversation or a code walkthrough equally well. Specificity is what separates that from filler. A number needs its definition before it means anything: a p99 is over some window and measured at some hop, and a server-side figure excludes the queueing and network time a client would see. The number you cannot qualify is the one to leave out.

What to demonstrate

Whether your examples carry detail only someone who did the work would hold, such as what the binding constraint actually was, which alternative you rejected and why it was worse, and what you measured on each side of the change
Whether a number survives one follow-up, meaning you can say what it was measured over and whether it moved because of your change or merely alongside it
Whether a failure is described with the specific change that followed it, rather than a lesson stated in general terms
Whether your part in a team effort is stated accurately, including what other people did

How to prepare

Write a page on each of three projects covering the constraint, the option you rejected, the measurement before and after, and what went wrong. Cut any line you cannot take a follow-up on, since you are writing the parts you will be pressed on rather than a summary.
Recover the real figures while you still have access: request volume, data size, latency with its percentile and window, team size, timeline. Note where each came from, whether a dashboard, a design document or memory, and mark the estimates so you can say which they are out loud.
Take your weakest project story to someone who works in a different area and have them ask why four times in succession. The point where you run out of answer is the part to go and re-read before the round.

Panel Evaluations

Where the day includes a partner from product, design or data, that conversation is weighted like the technical ones and prepared for least. They are deciding one thing: whether having you in the room makes their decisions cheaper. That means options with costs attached, not implementation detail and not "it depends". An estimate someone can plan against — a range, the assumption that would push it to the high end, and what you would drop to hit the low one — is worth more than a confident single number, which everyone present already knows is wrong.

What to demonstrate

Whether an estimate comes as a range with the assumption most likely to break it, and states what a specific scope cut would actually buy
Whether a technical constraint is handed over as a choice with consequences on their side, rather than as a verdict they have no standing to argue with
Whether you establish what decision is on the table before proposing anything
Whether risk is raised while it can still change the plan, with the trigger that would confirm it, instead of reported afterwards as a slip

How to prepare

Take a project that shipped late and write the two-sentence warning you could have given three weeks earlier, naming what you would have needed decided at that point
Rehearse one estimate out loud until it arrives in three parts: the range, the single assumption that would blow it, and the smallest thing you would cut to protect the date
Rewrite an objection you have actually made — the "we can't do that" version — as two options with their costs, so the choice ends up with the person who owns it

Where candidates lose points

Retrying an irreversible external call without an owned idempotency key

Timeouts and connection resets are ambiguous by construction - the partner may have committed before the response was lost - so a generic retry policy around an HTTP client is, in this domain, a machine for buying two labels and dispatching two trucks. Relying on the partner's deduplication is not a substitute, because their window is usually short, their key is often derived from fields you may legitimately change on retry, and many older integrations have no such concept at all. The workable pattern is to generate the key yourself, persist it with an explicit unknown status before the call, and resolve ambiguity by querying the partner for that key rather than re-issuing; the sweeper that does this is the component that has to be correct, not the call site. Teams get this right for payments and then forget that a carrier tender, a warehouse work release and an EDI shipping notice have the same shape.

Judging delivery windows and cut-offs in UTC

A delivery appointment, a receiving cut-off and a same-day promise are all statements about local wall-clock time at a specific stop, so evaluating them in UTC misclassifies on-time performance for any leg that crosses a zone, and misses cut-offs by an hour on the two days a year a region changes offset. The subtlety that catches experienced engineers is that converting a future local time to a UTC instant at write time bakes in the offset rules as they were known then: when a jurisdiction changes its rules, an appointment stored that way silently moves, which is why a future window is better stored as local wall time plus an IANA zone identifier and resolved at read time, while a past event is correctly stored as an instant. Duration arithmetic needs the same care, because a transit that spans a DST boundary is genuinely 23 or 25 hours long in local terms even though the elapsed instant count is unchanged. Storing only a date with no zone - common on partner feeds - is the version of this that cannot be fixed downstream, so the zone has to be captured at ingestion.

Choosing a schema before the access patterns are known

Write the queries first, with their filters, sort orders, cardinalities and which ones sit on the latency-critical path, then design tables and indexes to serve them. An index nothing queries still costs write throughput and storage, and a hot query with no supporting index becomes a full scan that only hurts once the table is big.

Hardcoding to the sample inputs

Solve the stated problem rather than the two examples; special-casing a literal to make a sample pass is obvious immediately and reads as either a misunderstanding or an attempt to fake progress. If you genuinely cannot generalise yet, say which part is a stub and what would replace it.

Questions & practice

Re-sum a movement ledger and report positions that disagree

Easy · aggregation · reconciliation · append-only ledger

inventory_movement holds 3 billion immutable rows: item_id, node_id, lot_id (NULL when the item is lot-untracked), state, delta_qty (signed int64 in the item's smallest transacting unit), uom_code, and reversed_by. inventory_position holds one row per (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) with qty, version and last_movement_id, using lot_id = 0 as the sentinel for untracked. Up to 80 million distinct keys. Report every key whose summed movements disagree with the stored qty, while writes continue. State your time and space bounds and how you bound the comparison.

Approach

Fix the key first. inventory_movement.lot_id is NULL for untracked items and inventory_position.lot_id is 0, so the group key is (item_id, node_id, COALESCE(lot_id, 0), state). Getting this wrong does not error — it silently produces two groups that each look like a variance, and the report becomes noise nobody reads.
Cut the ledger at a watermark, but do not take W = max(movement_id) at the start of the scan. A sequence hands out an id before the inserting transaction commits, so at the instant you read that maximum there are ids below it still in flight and invisible to your snapshot. Summing movement_id <= W misses them on this run, and advancing reconciled_through_movement_id to W makes the miss permanent: every later incremental run starts above those ids and they are never summed again. That is a hole in the ledger's own re-derivation, not a transient skew.
Take a watermark that is provably settled instead. Bound write transactions with a statement or transaction timeout so 'the longest write' is a number T, record (observed_at, max_movement_id) samples periodically, and use as W_safe the largest sampled id whose observed_at is older than T — every id at or below it has committed or rolled back. Sum rows with movement_id <= W_safe, compare only against position rows with last_movement_id <= W_safe, treat anything newer as a write that raced you rather than a variance, and advance reconciled_through_movement_id only to W_safe so the next run starts there instead of re-reading 3 billion rows. If the ledger carries a commit timestamp, cutting on that is the same guarantee without the sampling table.
Sum delta_qty as int64, and include reversal rows. reversed_by is a back-pointer for audit, not an exclusion filter: an original of +10 and its reversal of -10 must both be summed to reach 0. Excluding the original while keeping the reversal produces -10 and a false variance on every corrected key.
Guard the denomination rather than trusting it. uom_code is stored per row because pack factors change over time, so reject — do not sum — any row whose uom_code is not the item's smallest transacting unit, and report those keys separately. A mixed-denomination sum is arithmetically meaningless and looks exactly like a real variance.
Hash aggregation is O(n) time and O(distinct keys) space: 80 million entries at roughly 40-56 bytes each in a typical runtime is 3-5 GB, so quote the number. The bounded-memory alternative is an external sort-merge on the group key — O(n log n) comparisons, resident memory bounded by the merge fan-in rather than by key count, and it streams — or hash-partition by hash(item_id) % P and run P independent passes for 1/P of the peak.

Follow-up

A key shows a variance of exactly one pick, repeatedly, at one node. What do you look at first, and what would distinguish a duplicate movement from a missed one?
The job takes six hours and the variance report is stale by the time anyone reads it. How would you make it incremental without losing the guarantee that it re-derives from the ledger?
Who writes the correcting movement, and what reason code does it carry?

Find the hottest write keys under a fixed memory budget

Medium · top-k · heap · streaming sketches

One day of writes to inventory_movement is 200 million rows; each carries (item_id, node_id). Distinct pairs reach 60 million. Return the 200 pairs with the most writes so they can be moved behind a single writer before the next peak. First give the exact answer assuming you may hold 60 million counters, then give an answer under a 200 MB budget, and state the error guarantee that second answer carries. Both must be one pass over the day's rows unless you argue for a second.

Approach

Exact version: one hash pass to build (item_id, node_id) -> int64, then a single scan of the map maintaining a min-heap of size K = 200, pushing and popping when the incoming count exceeds the heap root. O(n + d log K) with n = 2e8 and d = 6e7, versus O(d log d) if you sort all 60 million entries — a factor of roughly log d / log K, about 3.4x, for no benefit. The heap must be a min-heap: the root is the weakest survivor, so eviction is O(log K).
Cost the map honestly. 60 million entries at a 16-byte key, an int64 count and per-entry overhead is 2-3 GB in most runtimes, which is the whole reason for the second version rather than a theoretical aside.
Bounded version: Misra-Gries with m counters. Keep at most m keys with counts; on a key already present increment it; on a new key when fewer than m are held, insert at 1; otherwise decrement every held counter and drop those reaching zero. With m = 1,000,000 at roughly 40 bytes per counter, that is about 40 MB, comfortably inside 200 MB alongside the heap.
State the guarantee as a number, not as 'approximate'. Misra-Gries returns an estimate satisfying f - n/(m+1) <= f_hat <= f, so with n = 2e8 and m = 1e6 every count is an undercount by at most 200. If the 200th hottest pair has hundreds of thousands of writes, a 200-count error cannot reorder the top of the list — and if the counts near rank 200 are within 200 of each other, the ranking there was never meaningful for the decision being made. The sketch also merges: run one per shard, combine, prune back to m, and the bound holds with n the combined length.
If exactness is genuinely required, argue for two passes rather than more memory: the Misra-Gries pass yields a candidate superset of size m, and a second pass counts only those candidates exactly in O(m) memory. That is the standard way to get an exact top-K under a memory bound, and the cost is one extra read of the day's rows.

Follow-up

The decision downstream is which keys get a single writer. Does a rank error at position 190 change that decision, and what does the answer tell you about how much accuracy to buy?
Write volume on one key is bursty — a promotion concentrates it into twenty minutes. Does a daily top-K find it, and what window would?
How do you keep the sketch across a worker restart without replaying the day?

Find the busiest ten-minute window per reader after deduplication

Medium · sliding window · event time · deduplication

One day of observation_event from fixed readers: source_id (reader), subject_id (container), occurred_at, received_at, dedupe_key. 300 million rows, partner and device replays resend whole windows, and some events arrive six hours after they occurred. For each reader, return the 10-minute event-time window containing the most distinct containers, with the window's start. Target linear work per reader after sorting. State the window semantics you chose, and what the job does with an event that lands after its window was already reported.

Approach

Deduplicate before windowing, on dedupe_key, and keep the two concerns separate. A replayed batch is a no-op only if the duplicate is removed first; deduplicating inside the window logic counts a resend as traffic and reports a congestion peak that never happened. Dedupe is a hash set per reader-day or a sort-unique on the key — the same sort you need anyway.
Partition by source_id and sort each partition by occurred_at, never by received_at. Arrival order is an artefact of device connectivity and partner batch cadence; a reader that went offline for six hours would otherwise show its entire backlog as one impossible burst. Sorting dominates: O(p log p) per reader of size p, O(n log n) overall.
Two pointers over the sorted partition with a hash multiset container -> count and a separate distinct integer. Advance the right pointer, incrementing the count and bumping distinct only on a 0-to-1 transition; advance the left pointer while occurred_at[left] <= occurred_at[right] - 600s, decrementing and lowering distinct only on a 1-to-0 transition, and erasing the key from the map so the map's size and distinct never diverge. Each element enters and leaves once: O(p) amortised after the sort, O(window occupancy) space.
Justify the candidate set rather than scanning every possible start. With half-open windows [t, t+600), sliding a window right until its left edge coincides with an event can only add events and never removes one, so the maximum is attained at some event's occurred_at; checking the p windows anchored at events is sufficient and exhaustive. State the half-open convention explicitly — an event exactly at t+600 belongs to the next window, and flip-flopping on that produces off-by-one disagreements between this job and whatever reads its output.
Handle lateness by choosing a policy, not by hoping. Either run over a closed event-time batch with a stated lateness allowance — the day plus six hours, so the six-hour tail is inside the batch and the day-late tail is not — or emit under a watermark and restate the affected windows when a late event lands. Both are defensible; what is not defensible is silently dropping the late event, because that is how the busiest window quietly becomes the one with the best connectivity.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the window semantics as one sentence — half-open [t, t+600), anchored at event timestamps — at the top of the function, and make the comparisons match it.
Implement dedupe, sort, then the two-pointer scan with the multiset and the explicit distinct counter.
Build a fixture for one reader: twelve events, one container seen three times inside a window, one duplicate dedupe_key, and one event at exactly t+600.
Hand-compute the expected maximum and window start, then run.
Re-run with the fixture shuffled and with the duplicate resent five more times, confirming the answer is unchanged.

Expected result: The container seen three times contributes 1 to the distinct count; the resent duplicates contribute 0; the event at exactly t+600 falls in the next window; the reported start is an event timestamp, not a rounded clock boundary.

Verify it yourself

A brute-force O(p^2) scan over all event-anchored windows agrees on a 1,000-event fixture.
The distinct counter equals the multiset's key count at every step — assert it in the loop while testing.
Sorting by received_at instead of occurred_at changes the answer on a fixture with a backlogged device, which is the test that proves event time is doing work.

Follow-up

Two events for one container arrive from two readers a second apart. Is that congestion, a misread, or one container passing two portals?
You need this continuously rather than as a daily batch. What changes, and where does the memory go?
A device's clock is three hours fast. What does that do to this result, and how would you detect it from clock_offset_ms?

Stop two allocators promising the same unit of stock

Medium · isolation levels · lock contention · compare-and-set

inventory_position is keyed (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) and holds qty BIGINT, which is on-hand stock and is moved only by the movement ledger; available_qty BIGINT, maintained on the same row; and version. The declared invariant is available_qty = qty - SUM(allocation.qty) over that key in status held or committed, enforced by CHECK (available_qty >= 0) and CHECK (available_qty <= qty). allocation holds allocation_id, order_line_id, item_id, node_id, lot_id, qty, tier, status (held, committed, consumed, released, expired) and expires_at. Twelve allocator threads try to claim the last eight units of one item at one node inside the same 50 ms. Give the exact statements that let at most eight units be claimed, then say what changes if identical code runs under PostgreSQL REPEATABLE READ versus InnoDB REPEATABLE READ, and what a retried allocate for the same order line must do.

Approach

Collapse the check and the write into one statement whose WHERE clause is the business rule: UPDATE inventory_position SET available_qty = available_qty - :q, version = version + 1 WHERE item_id = :i AND node_id = :n AND lot_id = :l AND state = 'on_hand' AND available_qty >= :q. qty is deliberately untouched: a hold is a promise, not a physical move, so only a movement may change on-hand and the ledger-equals-position invariant survives. Rowcount zero is a refusal, not an error, and the allocation row is inserted in the same transaction only when the rowcount is one.
If the deployment carries no available_qty column and availability must be derived, the alternative is SELECT ... FOR UPDATE on the position row followed by the SUM over held and committed allocations inside the same transaction. That is correct but holds the row lock for two statements instead of one, which matters on a key taking hundreds of writes a second.
Isolation is not a substitute for the atomic step, and it changes the error contract. Under PostgreSQL READ COMMITTED the losing UPDATE blocks, then re-evaluates its predicate against the newly committed row version and returns rowcount 0, which the handler already handles. Under PostgreSQL REPEATABLE READ the same statement instead raises SQLSTATE 40001 and the whole transaction must be retried, so a handler that only tests rowcount fails closed on an exception it never expected. InnoDB REPEATABLE READ does neither: a locking read or UPDATE performs a current read of the latest committed row, so the loser blocks and then sees rowcount 0, with a deadlock rather than a serialization failure as its exceptional case.
Make the retry a no-op with a partial unique index: UNIQUE (order_line_id, node_id, lot_id) WHERE status IN ('held','committed'). Then a retried allocate conflicts instead of double-claiming, and the handler reads the existing allocation and returns it.
Never source the availability number from a replica or a cache for this path. Replication lag is largest during the write burst that made the key hot, so the guarantee fails precisely when it is load-bearing.
For the hottest item-node pairs, shed load without overselling: route allocations for that key through a single writer with a bounded queue and refuse with a conservative not-available when the queue is full. Splitting the position into N sub-rows cuts contention N-fold but strands the remainder across sub-rows and produces false out-of-stock when the last units are spread thin.

Follow-up

One order line needs two units from two different nodes, atomically. What do you do when those positions live in different shards and no distributed transaction is available?
Soft-tier allocations expire. Show the sweeper statement, and say what stops it from releasing an allocation that is being committed at that instant.
Under sustained contention your CAS retries. What is the retry budget, and what does the caller see when it is exhausted?

Fold late, out-of-order scan events into one status per leg

Medium · window functions · event time · monotonic fold

observation_event holds event_id, subject_type, subject_id, observed_status, occurred_at, received_at, dedupe_key (UNIQUE) and processing_status. A lookup table maps observed_status to status_rank SMALLINT along a progress lattice. Write one query returning the current status of every shipment leg that received an event in the last hour, such that a picked_up event arriving after a delivered event never changes the answer. Then explain exactly which part of your ordering makes a shuffled replay of the same batch produce identical output.

Approach

Separate the two jobs. Deduplication is the UNIQUE on dedupe_key at ingest, because partner feeds resend whole windows; ordering is the fold. Either alone leaves a defect: dedupe without a lattice still lets a stale event win, and a lattice without dedupe double-counts a replayed window in anything that aggregates.
Select the affected legs in one CTE by received_at >= now() - interval '1 hour', then fold over every event for those legs, not only the recent ones. Restricting the fold's input to the recent window is the failure: a lone late picked_up would be the only row considered and the leg would regress.
Fold as a maximum over the lattice: SELECT DISTINCT ON (subject_id) subject_id, observed_status FROM ... ORDER BY subject_id, status_rank DESC, occurred_at DESC, event_id DESC. The equivalent form is ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY subject_id ORDER BY status_rank DESC, occurred_at DESC, event_id DESC) = 1.
The determinism comes from the final event_id tiebreak. Rank and occurred_at alone leave two equal-rank events at the same instant to be resolved by heap order, which changes when rows are re-inserted, so the shuffled replay differs in exactly the cases nobody tests. With a total order over the tuple the fold is a max, which is commutative and associative and therefore order-insensitive.
Do not advance a leg on occurred_at alone. The timestamp is device-reported and can be wrong, which is why the lattice rank leads the ORDER BY and why clock_offset_ms is worth storing: a future-dated event with a low rank then cannot promote itself past a delivered.
Keep superseded rows and mark processing_status = 'superseded' rather than deleting them. The discarded event is usually the one that explains a delivery dispute, and deleting it makes the trace unanswerable.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build a fixture for one leg with picked_up at T0, in_transit at T1, delivered at T2, then insert the picked_up row last so arrival order contradicts event order.
Write the CTE selecting affected subject_ids by received_at, then the DISTINCT ON fold joined to the rank lookup.
Run it and confirm delivered is returned, then shuffle the insert order of the same batch into a fresh table and re-run.
Add a second delivered event at the identical occurred_at from a different source and confirm the event_id tiebreak still picks one deterministically.

Expected result: One row per leg carrying the highest-ranked status ever observed, identical across every insert ordering of the same batch, with the late picked_up present in the table and marked superseded rather than absent.

Verify it yourself

Replay the batch in five random orders and diff the result sets; they must be byte-identical.
Remove the event_id tiebreak and confirm the equal-timestamp case becomes unstable across replays.
Restrict the fold input to received_at in the last hour and confirm the leg regresses to picked_up, reproducing the trap.
Confirm every input event is still present with a processing_status, so no evidence was discarded.

Follow-up

An event arrives a week late for a leg that is already invoiced. Does the fold apply it, reject it as late, or apply it and emit a correction?
The stream is partitioned by source_id rather than by subject_id. What ordering guarantee do you actually have, and what breaks?
How would you materialise this fold so the customer-facing status read is not running a window function per request?

What is your greatest achievement in your current role?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you troubleshoot complex issues in a hardware-software integrated system?

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Evolve an availability contract without breaking floor devices

Hard · versioning · backward compatibility · units

GET /availability currently returns {item_id, node_id, qty}, where qty is denominated in whatever the item master says today - eaches for some items, cases for others. Three clients consume it: a checkout service you deploy, a partner integration on a twelve-month release cycle, and handheld firmware on the warehouse floor you cannot force-upgrade. You must expose the unit explicitly, split qty into on_hand, available and reserved, and add a new inventory state. Deliver the field plan, the version negotiation mechanism, the deprecation path, and how you prove nobody still reads the old field.

Approach

Start from the rule that survives contact with un-upgradable clients: never change the meaning or the denomination of a live field. qty keeps precisely its current semantics forever, and the new truth ships as new fields - available_qty with an explicit uom_code, plus the on_hand and reserved split - so the handheld keeps reading exactly what it always read.
Be precise about which additions are safe. New fields are safe only if readers ignore unknown ones, so state tolerant-reader expectations in the contract. Adding a value to an existing enum is not safe: a client switching exhaustively over inventory state breaks on the new state. Either declare the enum open in the current version with a mandated fallback branch, or carry the new state in a parallel field that old clients never see. Choose one and write it down.
Pin versions per client credential rather than per deploy - an account-level default, overridable per request by a version header - so nobody is upgraded by your release. Name the cost honestly: you now serve N shapes from one code path, so cap N with a published support window and a rule that a frozen version gets no changes, not even helpful ones.
Prove the dependency instead of assuming it. Count reads of the deprecated field per client credential, then send Sunset (RFC 8594) with a date and a deprecation link on a horizon longer than the slowest client's release cycle - a twelve-month partner cycle sets the floor, and the handheld fleet may not clear it at all, which is a planning input rather than a surprise.
Guard it in CI with consumer-driven contract tests that fail on any field removal, type change or enum widening in a frozen version. A review checklist does not survive a rushed release; the test does.
Close the loop on the unit trap explicitly: when a supplier changes a case from twelve to ten, the bare qty must not silently re-denominate. Carry the conversion factor's version alongside the number, and state that values already served keep the factor in force when they were computed.

Worked solution (40 min)

Write the current and target payloads side by side and mark every field as unchanged, added or frozen - with nothing in a fourth category.
For the new inventory state, write what each of the three clients does when it encounters an unrecognised value today, and pick open-enum or parallel-field accordingly.
Specify the negotiation: the credential-level default, the override header, the error for an unknown or retired version, and the support window.
Design the usage telemetry that tells you which credential still reads qty, and state the threshold at which you would send Sunset.
Write the CI contract test that fails on a removal, a type change or an enum widening in a frozen version, and run it against the proposed change.

Expected result: An additive plan where qty is frozen rather than redefined, the unit travels on every new quantity field, enum evolution is settled explicitly, versions are pinned per credential, and the deprecation date is derived from measured usage plus the slowest client's release cycle.

Verify it yourself

A replay of captured handheld requests against the new build produces byte-compatible values in every field that firmware reads.
A client pinned to the old version never sees the new state value in any field it parses.
The contract test fails when someone changes qty's type or adds an enum value to the frozen version.

Follow-up

A client sends a version header you retired last quarter. What do you return, and what will their code do with it?
You need one breaking change on one endpoint. How do you ship it without versioning the whole API?
The Sunset date arrives and the handheld fleet still reads the deprecated field. What are your options, in order of cost?

Availability p99 spikes in a sawtooth locked to the cache TTL

Medium · cache stampede · single-flight · load shedding

Available-to-promise reads sit inside checkout with a 12 ms p99 behind a 60-second per-key cache. During a promotion, p99 spikes to 900 ms in a sawtooth exactly on 60-second boundaries and is normal between spikes. The inventory database shows bursts of thousands of identical single-row position reads inside 50 ms across about 40 item-node keys, and the connection pool saturates during each burst. Request throughput is unchanged. Diagnose, fix, and state which callers may read a cached availability and which may not.

Approach

Separate a stampede from saturation by the shape. Latency that rises smoothly with request rate is capacity; a sawtooth whose period equals the TTL, with normal service between peaks, is expiry-driven. Confirm by overlaying spike timestamps on key expiry times and watching the hit ratio fall to near zero for a few milliseconds each cycle.
Size the herd with Little's law rather than adjectives. Concurrency equals arrival rate times service time, so a key taking 1,200 requests per second with a 30 ms origin read admits about 36 simultaneous origin reads at each expiry, and 40 keys that expire together produce roughly 1,440 against a 100-connection pool. That fourteen-fold oversubscription is the 900 ms, and the arithmetic matching is what confirms the diagnosis.
Explain why the 40 keys expire in lockstep: they were all populated in the same second when promotion traffic arrived, so their TTLs are synchronised and stay synchronised. Jitter of plus or minus twenty percent on the TTL desynchronises them; it does not reduce the per-key herd.
Bound the per-key herd with single-flight. One in-flight origin read per cache key, with concurrent callers awaiting the same result, takes origin load to one read per key per TTL regardless of request rate. Add serve-stale-while-revalidate so the waiters get the previous value immediately and staleness is bounded and measured rather than incidental.
Draw the correctness boundary explicitly, because it is not a performance question. Browse and product pages may read a cached or stale availability. The allocation path may not: the check and the write must be one atomic step against the primary, so a cached number can inform a display but must never authorise a reservation. Checkout sits in between and should either read through with a short TTL or accept that its number is advisory and can fail at allocation.
Decide the degradation direction in advance. If the origin is saturated, the read path should shed to a conservative answer, showing limited availability rather than a precise count and never rounding upward, because an optimistic stale read converts a latency incident into oversells and short-ships.

Follow-up

What does your single-flight do when the origin read times out: fail the waiters, or serve them the stale value, and what bounds the staleness?
One key gets hot enough that even one origin read per TTL per replica is too much across 200 application instances. What changes?
How would you invalidate a key on a movement write without opening a second stampede on the invalidation itself?

Suggested practice checklist

Day one measures instead of guessing, under a fixed rubric, and the remaining hours are allocated in proportion to the gaps before any studying begins. The allocation is deliberately not renegotiated midweek, because the area that feels worst on day three is usually the one that is moving.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 110-minute diagnostic in four blocks: forty-five minutes on two coding problems, twenty-five on one design prompt taken to interface and data model, twenty of short-answer fundamentals, and twenty delivering two behavioural answers aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct and 0 is stuck, grading the artifact rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate days two to five in proportion to 3 minus each block's score, write the allocation down, and commit to leaving it alone.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

Split the weakest area into named sub-skills and rate each separately. For coding those are restating the problem, choosing the structure, stating the invariant, turning the invariant into loop bounds, handling empty and single-element input, and accounting for complexity out loud.
Attempt three items positioned just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-attempt one of them from blank four hours later with nothing open.

Deliverable: A sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Drill the blocking sub-skill by repeating the shape

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what gets practised is the pattern and not the puzzle.
State the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it, a sliding window over an array containing negative values, or a cache-aside read path whose invalidation message is dropped.
Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on the strongest area

Run the same sub-skill decomposition on the second-largest gap in half the time.
Spend twenty-five timed minutes on the block you scored highest, choosing the hardest item you can still finish rather than a warm-up.
Write whether each area fails you on recall, on setup, or on execution, and set the fix accordingly: repetition for recall, a written checklist for setup, timed work for execution.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line failure diagnosis for each area.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record one technical and one behavioural answer, then count two things in the playback: seconds before your first clarifying question, and sentences you began without knowing where they would end.
Practise saying that you do not know, followed by how you would find out, without letting it soften into a guess, and practise stating a complexity or an estimate before being asked for it.
Redeliver one answer under a hard ninety-second cap, which forces structure ahead of detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted reduction in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 110-minute structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
For any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write down which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed beside the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a sixty-minute mock over the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer briefed to interrupt and change direction mid-answer.
Write the recovery script for going blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Say every rule from the week aloud without reading it, and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive an interruption.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

Bounding a vague ticket before writing code

When the requirements were thin, the interesting part is how you fenced the problem off: the assumption you wrote down, who you got to confirm it, the narrow version you shipped first so the rest stayed cheap to change. Guessing and being right is luck. Guessing in writing, where someone could correct you, is method.

Can you cite an example where you had to lead a group to success while dealing with technical issues?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Describe a project where you faced a significant problem. How did you identify the root cause and implement a solution?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

Are you comfortable pushing back on stakeholders when necessary?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

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

Describe your experience with S-parameters and impedance matching.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.

Follow-up

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