Interview guides · AEM

AEM Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

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

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at AEM plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between sophisticated software architecture and the high-precision world of semiconductor testing. You are not merely writing code; you are building the intelligence that powers advanced manufacturing equipment, ensuring that the technology driving global electronics functions with absolute reliability.

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

Fold late, out-of-order scan events by event time
Reconcile a movement ledger against derived positions
Model units, lots and state machines precisely

Overview

Your work directly impacts the efficiency of semiconductor testing machines, requiring a blend of software rigor and an appreciation for hardware-level constraints. Whether you are developing control systems, optimizing data processing, or creating robust interfaces, your contributions are critical to maintaining the high performance and quality standards that define AEM’s market presence.

This role is intellectually demanding and offers significant exposure to industrial-scale engineering. You will be expected to thrive in an environment where technical precision meets operational reality. If you are a problem-solver who enjoys understanding how software translates into physical, measurable outcomes, this role offers a unique opportunity to influence the backbone of the semiconductor supply chain.

The AEM interview process

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

Initial Screening

Half of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.

What to demonstrate

Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not

How to prepare

Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window

Technical Assessment

Input bounds are the part of the prompt most often skimmed, and they usually contain the answer. They tell you which complexity class is admissible, which narrows the search before you have thought about the problem itself. As a rough planning figure, a compiled language does on the order of 10^8 simple operations per second and an interpreted one roughly an order of magnitude less. So n up to about twenty admits enumerating subsets, a few thousand admits a quadratic pass, and a million admits neither: you need near-linear, or linear with a log factor. If the bounds are missing, ask for them.

What to demonstrate

Whether the approach is justified by the stated input size rather than by whichever pattern you recognised first
Whether you ask about the properties that change the algorithm: whether the input arrives sorted, whether duplicates occur, whether values are bounded integers, whether it all fits in memory
Whether you can name the bottleneck in your own solution and what would remove it, even when you deliberately leave it in place
Whether a claimed speedup is real, since memoising a recursion only helps when subproblems genuinely overlap and the state can be keyed cheaply

How to prepare

For each algorithm you rely on, write down the largest n it handles in roughly a second, then check two of those figures by timing them in the language you will actually type in
For two weeks, write one line naming your target complexity and the bound that justifies it before you write any code, then compare that line with what you ended up submitting
Practise the conversion backwards: given a required O(n log n), list the mechanisms that get you there (sorting, a heap, an ordered map, divide and conquer) and choose by what the problem needs to query, not by what you used last

Behavioral Assessment

Your first answer is not really what is scored. It buys the follow-up questions, and those decide the round. An interviewer with fifteen minutes takes one thread and pushes on it four or five times, so a story you can only tell at a single level of detail collapses under the third why. That is an argument for fewer stories known deeply rather than one prepared per prompt. Four or five pieces of work you can still explain down to the code you changed and the argument you had about it will cover nearly anything asked in this round.

What to demonstrate

Whether a story holds as the questioning moves from what you did to why that instead of the alternative, and then to what you would change knowing what you know now
Whether you can re-cut a project to answer the question actually asked rather than delivering a rehearsed block that answers an adjacent one
Whether your level of detail is chosen rather than habitual: going down to the schema when the question is about the data model, staying out of it when the question is about the person who disagreed with you

How to prepare

Pick four projects and write the chain out four levels deep for each: what you did, why that, why not the alternative, and what would have to be true for the alternative to have won. Where you cannot reach the fourth level, you have a placeholder rather than a story
Have someone ask why three times in a row on a single thread with nothing else added, and mark the point where you start repeating a sentence you already said. That point is where the interviewer stops learning anything
Build a one-page index instead of an answer bank: the common prompts in this round (disagreement, a failure that was yours, thin requirements, a deadline you missed, work you inherited) mapped to which of your four projects you would use for each, so the choosing is done now rather than while an interviewer waits

Final Discussions

Nobody in the room with you decides this. Interviewers typically write their rounds up separately, often before seeing anyone else's, and the outcome is settled later from those write-ups. A split panel gets resolved by whichever note carries specific evidence, so what you want out of each room is one concrete thing that person could write down: a bug you caught yourself, a trade-off you named, a decision you owned. The rest is arithmetic. The project you describe in a behavioural conversation is often the same system you sketched an hour earlier, and the two accounts have to agree.

What to demonstrate

Whether the scale, team size and timeline you attach to a project hold steady when that project resurfaces in a different round
Whether each interviewer leaves with a specific thing to cite rather than a general impression of competence
Whether a trade-off you defended in one round survives a challenge in another, instead of being quietly swapped for the answer the new interviewer seemed to want
Whether a question you have already answered earlier in the day gets the same answer at the same depth, without visible impatience

How to prepare

Write a one-page sheet per project fixing the figures you will quote — request volume, data size, team size, elapsed time, what broke — and say them aloud from the sheet until they come out identical every time
For each round on the schedule, decide in advance the one sentence you want in that person's notes, then check in a mock that you said it outright instead of leaving it to be inferred
Have someone ask you the same project question twice, an hour apart, and diff the two answers for numbers that moved or a trade-off that reversed

Where candidates lose points

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.

Holding a database transaction open across a physical or third-party operation

It is natural to open a transaction, lock the position, call the rating or tendering API, and commit on the response, and it works perfectly until the partner's p99 goes from 200 milliseconds to thirty seconds. At that point every request holding a lock on a hot item-node pair queues behind it, the connection pool fills with transactions that are waiting on the network rather than on the database, and an unrelated service sharing the pool fails at the same moment. In this domain the effect is amplified because demand concentrates on a few hot rows during a promotion or a seasonal peak, exactly when partner latency is also degraded. The structural fix is to keep transactions short and local - commit the state change together with an outbox row, let a relay perform the external call, and reconcile asynchronously - accepting at-least-once delivery and making the effect idempotent rather than trying to stretch a transaction over something the database cannot roll back.

Retrying a write that is not safe to repeat

A timeout tells you nothing about whether the server applied the write, so a blind retry of a create or a charge can duplicate it. Either make the operation idempotent, with a caller-supplied key the server deduplicates on or a conditional update, or do not retry it; and use exponential backoff with jitter so the retries of many clients do not synchronise into a second outage.

Saying 'eventually consistent' without naming the anomaly a user would see

Describe the concrete symptom you are choosing to accept: the author reloads and their own comment is missing for two seconds, or two devices show different balances for a minute. The class of consistency model is a technical label; the tolerable anomaly is the actual product decision.

Questions & practice

Please explain your specific involvement in technical design projects.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.

Follow-up

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

Can you solve a "Two Sum" style problem?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

Follow-up

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

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?

Model the movement ledger so a retried write is a no-op

Easy · append-only ledger · idempotency · audit history

inventory_movement is append-only: movement_id, item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, delta_qty (signed BIGINT), uom_code, reason_code, ref_type, ref_id, idempotency_key, occurred_at, recorded_at, reversed_by. inventory_position is keyed (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) with qty, version, last_movement_id. Give the DDL constraints and the exact statements a pick confirmation runs so that a client which times out after the commit and retries changes nothing. Then say how you correct a pick recorded against the wrong lot two days ago, and why the position carries CHECK (qty >= 0) rather than clamping at zero.

Approach

Put the guarantee in the schema, not the handler: UNIQUE (idempotency_key) on inventory_movement. A SELECT-then-INSERT cannot work, because two concurrent retries both read nothing before either commits and both then insert.
Claim with INSERT ... ON CONFLICT (idempotency_key) DO NOTHING RETURNING movement_id, and branch on rowcount. Zero rows means the first attempt already committed, so the handler returns success without touching the position. This branch is the whole point: applying the position update on the conflict path is what makes the ledger and the shelf disagree by one pick forever.
Keep the insert and the position update in one transaction: UPDATE inventory_position SET qty = qty + :delta, version = version + 1, last_movement_id = :id WHERE item_id = :i AND node_id = :n AND lot_id = :l AND state = :s AND version = :v, then test the rowcount and retry the transaction on zero.
Use lot_id BIGINT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 rather than NULL. In a default unique index NULLs are distinct from each other, so a NULL lot would let two position rows exist for the same untracked item and split the running sum in half.
Correct the mis-keyed pick with two compensating movements, never an UPDATE or a deleted_at flag: one reversal restoring the wrong lot, one fresh pick against the right lot, both with reason_code = 'reversal' or 'pick' and ref pointing at the original movement_id. The original row keeps its values; reversed_by is a back-pointer written in the same transaction so a reader does not need a reverse scan to see that the row was undone.
CHECK (qty >= 0) aborts the transaction and surfaces a real defect. GREATEST(qty + :delta, 0) writes a plausible number instead, so the missing receipt that caused the negative is never investigated and the first symptom is a picker at an empty location.

Follow-up

Two retries of the same pick arrive concurrently on different application instances. Walk through both transactions statement by statement and say which one commits a position change.
occurred_at from a handheld is five minutes ahead of recorded_at because the device clock drifted. Which of your queries break, and which column should each of them actually be using?
How long do you keep idempotency_key unique for, given the table grows by tens of millions of rows a month?

Write the reconciliation query that finds ledger and position variance

Easy · aggregation · outer joins · reconciliation

inventory_movement(movement_id, item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, delta_qty) is the ledger; inventory_position(item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, qty, version, last_movement_id, reconciled_through_movement_id) is its running sum, written in the same transaction as each movement. Write one query that reports every key whose stored qty disagrees with the sum of its movements, including keys present in only one of the two tables, bounded by a watermark movement_id you pass in. State what the job does with each variance, and how you avoid re-summing four billion rows every night.

Approach

Aggregate once and join once: a CTE doing SELECT item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, SUM(delta_qty) AS ledger_qty FROM inventory_movement WHERE movement_id <= :w GROUP BY 1,2,3,4, then FULL OUTER JOIN inventory_position USING those four columns. One pass plus one hash aggregate, O(n) in movements scanned; a correlated subquery per position row instead costs one index scan per key and is orders of magnitude slower at 40 million keys.
Use FULL OUTER JOIN, not LEFT. A key with movements and no position row is the signature of a lost position update, and a position row with no movements is the signature of a write that bypassed the ledger. Both disappear under a LEFT JOIN from either side.
Compare with IS DISTINCT FROM and COALESCE the join keys out of both sides, so a missing row reads as a variance rather than as NULL = NULL evaluating to unknown and being filtered away.
Run both sides in one snapshot: either a single statement, or a REPEATABLE READ transaction. Reading positions in one transaction and movements in another manufactures variances for every key written in between.
Make it incremental with reconciled_through_movement_id: sum only movements in (reconciled_through, :w] and add that delta to the previously verified total. The catch is that sequence values are handed out before commit, so a movement whose id is below :w can become visible after the scan and would then never be re-summed. Set :w to a max(movement_id) observed a few minutes earlier, beyond the longest write transaction, and full-scan one partition per night on a rotation as a backstop.
A variance is reported, not repaired. Rewriting qty to match the ledger hides the double-applied retry that caused it; only a physical count may produce a cycle_count_adjust movement, and the location should be flagged unreliable to planning until it is counted.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the aggregate CTE with the watermark predicate, then the FULL OUTER JOIN and the IS DISTINCT FROM filter, projecting COALESCE(m.item_id, p.item_id) and both quantities.
Seed a fixture with four cases: agreeing key, disagreeing key, movements with no position row, position row with no movements.
Run it and confirm exactly three rows come back, with the agreeing key absent.
Rewrite the same comparison as an incremental sum from reconciled_through_movement_id and confirm it reports the same three keys on a second run after new movements land.

Expected result: A result set of (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, ledger_qty, stored_qty, ledger_qty - stored_qty) containing one row per disagreeing key and both orphan cases, and zero rows on a consistent fixture.

Verify it yourself

Swap the FULL OUTER JOIN for a LEFT JOIN and confirm the movements-only orphan vanishes from the output.
Replace IS DISTINCT FROM with <> and confirm the rows with a NULL on one side stop being reported.
Insert a movement while the query runs and confirm the result does not change, proving both sides came from one snapshot.
Compare the incremental result against a full re-sum of the same partition and require an exact match.

Follow-up

The job finds 14 variances, all on one node, all negative. What do you look at first, and what would make you suspect the reconciliation job itself rather than the data?
How do you run this without the nightly scan competing with the ATP read path for buffer cache and I/O?
What does the query return for a key whose only movements are a receipt and its exact reversal, and is that row worth reporting?

What do you know about semiconductor testing or the specific part of the manufacturing process AEM focuses on?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Can you explain how circuits work in the context of Electrical and Electronic Engineering?

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

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

Verify, deduplicate and fold inbound carrier status webhooks

Medium · webhooks · signature verification · out-of-order events

A carrier posts leg status events to your webhook. They retry any non-2xx for 24 hours and resend whole windows after their own outages, so duplicates and hours-late events are routine. Design the endpoint: the signature scheme and the bytes it covers, the replay defence, the deduplication key against observation_event.dedupe_key UNIQUE, exactly what a 2xx promises, and how a picked_up event arriving after delivered is folded given shipment_leg.status and status_rank. State what you return for a duplicate and for a signature failure.

Approach

Sign over raw bytes: HMAC-SHA256 of timestamp, a separator and the exact request body, compared in constant time, with a key id in the header so rotation means accepting two secrets for a window rather than a flag day. Verify before parsing - re-serialising parsed JSON changes key order, whitespace and number formatting, so a signature computed over the re-encoded body is either broken or meaningless.
Bound replay with a timestamp tolerance of a few minutes and close the residual window with the dedupe key rather than by widening the tolerance. A signature with no timestamp is a permanently valid credential for anyone who captured one request.
Acknowledge fast and apply later. Insert into observation_event with ON CONFLICT (dedupe_key) DO NOTHING and return 202; a conflict is a 2xx no-op, because a duplicate is expected traffic and a 4xx puts the partner into a 24-hour retry loop over data you already hold. Write into the contract that 2xx means durably stored, not applied - folding inline exceeds their client timeout and converts one event into a resend storm.
Fold as a separate step with a monotonic lattice: order candidate events by occurred_at, take the maximum status_rank, and never write a lower rank. Keep superseded rows with processing_status = superseded, because the event you discarded is usually the one that explains the dispute three weeks later.
Refuse to trust occurred_at on its own. Store received_at and clock_offset_ms beside it, treat a timestamp beyond a skew bound or in the future as suspect, and let the rank lattice - not the device clock - be what makes late data safe.
If ingestion hands off to a broker, key the partition by leg_id. Ordering guarantees are per-partition, so any other key lets two events for one leg be processed concurrently and the max-rank fold becomes a race.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the signed string, the header layout including the key id, and the constant-time comparison.
Write the insert with its ON CONFLICT clause and the response for each outcome: new, duplicate, bad signature, stale timestamp, malformed body.
Shuffle a batch of five events for one leg - two of them duplicates, one picked_up after the delivered - replay them in three different orders and assert identical final leg status.
Decide the timestamp tolerance and justify it against the partner's observed clock skew rather than a default.
State the partition key and the hot-partition risk that follows from it.

Expected result: Signature over raw bytes with a timestamp tolerance and key id, duplicates absorbed by a unique dedupe_key and answered 2xx, 202 meaning stored rather than applied, and a fold by occurred_at taking max(status_rank) that is provably order-insensitive.

Verify it yourself

Replaying the same shuffled batch in any order converges on one final status and one row count.
A late picked_up never lowers a leg already marked delivered, and the superseded event is still readable.
A body altered by one byte fails verification, and a valid body signed with the retired secret still passes during the rotation window.

Follow-up

The partner re-mints its event id on retry, so the same real event arrives under two dedupe keys. What is your second line of defence?
You fix a parser bug and want to replay three days of rejected_malformed rows. What in the design makes that safe?
How do you rotate the shared secret with no coordinated downtime, and how do you know the old one is unused?

Orchestrator memory climbs a gigabyte a day at flat throughput

Medium · memory leak · timers · heap analysis

The fulfilment orchestrator's resident memory rises about 900 MB a day and old-generation occupancy after each full collection rises monotonically; a restart resets both. Transition throughput and latency are unchanged, and saga state itself lives in the database. The process keeps an in-heap timer wheel with one timeout entry per forward step of each order line, and lines legitimately sit in one state for days. Diagnose in order, prove the hypothesis with arithmetic before changing code, and give the fix.

Approach

Distinguish a leak from a large working set first, because the remedies are opposite. Plot occupancy immediately after each full collection, not resident memory: a monotone rise across days is retention, while a rise that plateaus is a cache doing its job. Live sagas legitimately number in the millions here, so the working set is genuinely large and the question is only whether it is bounded.
Diff two heap dumps taken two hours apart by retained size per dominator rather than guessing at the suspect. The growth will show as timer entries that transitively pin whole saga objects; the reference path from the GC root through the wheel's bucket array to the entry to the saga is what names the owner, and without that path you are guessing.
Prove the hypothesis numerically before touching code. 900 MB a day divided by roughly 1.5 KB retained per entry is about 600,000 entries a day, near seven a second. Compare that to entries created per second minus entries removed per second. If the rates do not match within an order of magnitude, the dominator is something else and the timer wheel is a bystander.
Name the defect precisely: the entry is registered when a step starts and is only released when its timeout fires, so a step that completes early leaves an orphan that survives until its deadline, and a step whose line is cancelled or re-sourced leaves one that may never be cleaned at all. Age cannot be used to identify orphans, because a line sitting in one state for days is normal.
Fix by cancelling on transition, keyed by (order_line_id, step), so the entry is removed by the same code path that advances the saga. Then move the timer out of the heap entirely: persist due_at on the saga row and let a sweeper poll WHERE due_at < now() AND status IN (open states) behind an index on due_at partial to those states. That bounds memory by the poll batch instead of by open sagas, and fixes the separate bug that an in-heap wheel silently loses every pending timeout on restart or deploy.
Add a bound so the next version of this is loud. Cap the in-flight timer structure, emit a metric on entries created versus removed, and alert on the difference rather than on memory, which only moves after the damage is done.

Follow-up

The sweeper now polls millions of open sagas. What does the index look like and how do you keep the poll from scanning the whole table?
Two orchestrator instances poll the same due sagas. How do you stop both from firing the same timeout?
How would you have detected the lost-timeouts-on-restart bug, given that it produced no error and no memory symptom?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last few years shipping features and reading other people's code, and who has not solved a timed problem from a blank file in a long time. Five days rebuild the primitives and the patterns that sit on them, working from invariants rather than remembered solutions, and the last two attach that back to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Rebuild the primitives by implementing them

Implement a dynamic array with doubling growth and an operation counter, then change the growth rule to add a fixed sixteen slots instead, and time both for n of ten thousand, a hundred thousand and a million. The fixed-increment version resizes n/16 times at O(n) each, so its total work is quadratic; doubling is what makes append amortised constant.
Implement a hash map with separate chaining and a load-factor resize, then insert ten thousand keys engineered to land in one bucket and record what happens to lookup time, so that average-case O(1) becomes a claim with a stated precondition rather than a reflex.
For dynamic-array append and hash-map insert, write down which cost is amortised rather than worst-case, which single operation pays the whole bill, and what a system with a hard per-operation deadline would have to do instead.

Deliverable: Two working implementations plus a timing table showing the input at which each structure's advertised complexity stops holding.

Day 2 — Arrays under an invariant: two pointers, sliding window, binary search

Solve longest-subarray-with-sum-at-most-K using a sliding window, then run it on an input containing negative numbers and watch it return the wrong answer: extending the window only moves the sum monotonically when every element is non-negative, and that precondition is the whole reason the technique works.
Write the binary search that finds the first index satisfying a predicate rather than an exact value, put the loop invariant above the loop in a comment, and verify termination on the two inputs that break careless versions: the empty range, and a range where every element satisfies the predicate.
Compute the midpoint as lo + (hi - lo) / 2 and write one line on why the obvious (lo + hi) / 2 is a genuine defect in a fixed-width integer type and a non-issue in a language with arbitrary-precision integers.

Deliverable: Three solved problems, each with its invariant written above the loop, plus one recorded input on which the sliding window is provably wrong.

Day 3 — Sorting, heaps, and the greedy argument that has to be proved

Solve one top-k problem three ways, by full sort, by a size-k heap, and by quickselect, then write the values of n and k at which each becomes the right choice, along with quickselect's quadratic worst case and why a randomised pivot makes that unlikely rather than impossible.
Implement bottom-up heapify and count sift-down steps to confirm it does linear work rather than n log n, because most nodes sit near the bottom of the tree and therefore move only a short distance.
Take interval scheduling by earliest finishing time and write the exchange argument out in full: given any optimal schedule, swapping in the earliest-finishing interval keeps it feasible and no smaller. Then construct the weighted variant where that same greedy fails and name what has to replace it.

Deliverable: A three-way top-k comparison with measured crossover points, one written exchange argument, and one counterexample to a greedy rule that looks almost identical.

Day 4 — Recursion, memoisation, and the step to a table

Take one problem with overlapping subproblems, such as edit distance or coin change, instrument the plain recursion with a call counter to show the blow-up, then add memoisation and re-count.
Convert the memoised version to a bottom-up table and state the two properties you relied on: each subproblem's result depends only on its arguments, and the dependencies form a DAG you can enumerate in order.
Rewrite one deep recursion with an explicit stack, then find the input length at which the original hits the interpreter's frame limit, which defaults to about a thousand frames in CPython, so you know when the rewrite is required rather than decorative.

Deliverable: One problem in three forms, naive, memoised and tabulated, with call counts for each and the input length at which recursion depth becomes the binding constraint.

Day 5 — Graphs, where most of the work is choosing the traversal

Implement BFS and DFS over one adjacency list, then answer for each which finds a shortest path in an unweighted graph and which you would use to detect a cycle in a directed graph, including why the in-progress versus finished distinction matters for the second.
Implement topological sort by in-degree, feed it a graph containing a cycle, and confirm the failure signature is that fewer than V nodes come out rather than an exception, then note that the order it produces is one of several valid ones.
Run a shortest-path search on a graph with a single negative edge weight and show the wrong answer, then write the precondition Dijkstra actually needs, non-negative weights, because it finalises a node's distance the first time that node is popped, and name the algorithm you would switch to and its own limit.

Deliverable: A small graph library with BFS, DFS and topological sort, plus two inputs that produce documented wrong answers under the wrong algorithm choice.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not an algorithm

Sketch one system only to the depth a coding-heavy loop tends to reach: the endpoints, what the service stores, and the single query pattern that decides the schema. Stop at twenty-five minutes.
Prepare the project answer for an interviewer who codes, which means rehearsing the two levels they push to: the specific thing you built, and why you chose that approach over the alternative they will name. Open with a number and be ready to say what it excludes.
Prepare the answer to what you would do differently, choosing a real technical mistake with a specific fix rather than a complaint about process or staffing.

Deliverable: One design sketch at endpoint-and-schema depth, plus a project answer rehearsed to two levels of follow-up.

Day 7 — Solve out loud, under time

Do three timed problems at twenty-five minutes each in a plain editor with no autocomplete and no execution until the end, then tally separately the failures that were syntax and the ones that were approach, because those two numbers call for different fixes.
Narrate one solution from the first sentence, stating the approach and its complexity before writing any code, and rehearse the sentence you will use when you realise mid-solution that the approach is wrong.
Re-solve from blank the two problems you were slowest on this week and compare the times against the day they first appeared.

Deliverable: A recording of one fully narrated solution and a tally that separates syntax failures from approach failures.

Disagreement needs an outcome you did not choose

Conflict answers where you were right and everyone came round are the weakest ones. Stronger: the evidence you went and collected, what would have changed your mind, and what you did in the weeks after the call went against you. Implementing a design you argued against, properly, is a specific and checkable behaviour.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
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?

What is your experience with PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) systems?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you handle stress and high-pressure situations?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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