Interview guides · AI research lab

AI research lab Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist prep for AI research lab candidates: drill A/B design, power and minimum detectable effect on original exercises.

The 60-second brief

At AI research lab, the Data Scientist role sits at the intersection of rigorous mathematical research and practical product application. You are not merely a builder of models; you are a strategic partner who defines how data informs the evolution of cutting-edge AI products. Your work directly influences user experience, model performance, and the long-term scalability of the lab's research initiatives.

SQL is seldom the hardest round and is often the one that eliminates people. The working bar is usually window functions, correct deduplication, and joins that do not silently fan out rows, rather than obscure syntax.

Focus areas

Analyse at the account grain, cluster errors
Separate contracted seats from actively used seats
Measure churn only on renewal-eligible accounts

Overview

This position is critical because you act as the bridge between raw algorithmic potential and measurable business value. You will be expected to translate ambiguous, high-level product goals into precise experimental frameworks. Whether you are diagnosing a sudden drop in a key metric or designing an A/B test to validate a new feature, your ability to apply statistical rigor in a fast-paced environment is what sets the lab's team apart.

The work is intellectually demanding and often requires you to operate with a high degree of autonomy. You will collaborate with researchers and engineers to solve complex problems where there is no pre-existing playbook. Success here requires a blend of technical mastery, product intuition, and the ability to communicate complex findings to cross-functional stakeholders who may not share your technical background.

The AI research lab interview process

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

Initial Screening

Most candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.

What to demonstrate

Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal

How to prepare

Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered

Technical Deep-Dives

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows

Project Walkthrough

Rounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.

What to demonstrate

Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options

How to prepare

Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.

Real-World Problem Solving

An added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact

How to prepare

Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.

Behavioral Assessment

This round decides whether you owned a decision or watched one happen nearby. Interviewers for data roles listen for the point where the analysis stopped being a report and started changing what someone did, so build each story around that hinge: what was going to happen by default, what you found, and what happened instead. The most common weakness is a story that ends at delivery. If you can name the decision your work changed and the number that moved because of it, most follow-ups become easy.

What to demonstrate

Whether the decision was yours to influence, or whether you are narrating a team outcome in the first person
The counterfactual: what would have been done without your analysis, and why that default was worse
How far your involvement ran past the handoff, and whether you checked that the change did what you predicted

How to prepare

Pick three projects and write one sentence for each naming the decision-maker, the choice in front of them, and what they chose after seeing your work. If you cannot name a person and a choice, the story is not ready for this round.
Reconstruct the baseline for your strongest project from the original query or dashboard rather than memory, so the before-number survives a follow-up asking where it came from.
Prepare an honest version of a project where your recommendation was overruled, including what you did with the analysis afterwards.

Where candidates lose points

Computing monthly churn against the entire customer base when contracts are annual

An annual contract has no opportunity to churn except at its renewal date, so an account that is eleven months from renewal is in the denominator while being incapable of appearing in the numerator. The resulting rate is smaller than the real one by roughly the ratio of the base to the renewal-eligible base, and it oscillates with the seasonality of when deals were originally signed rather than with anything about the customers. The corresponding trap on the other side is counting a churn on the date the record was updated rather than on term_end_date, which shifts losses into whichever month the operations team did its paperwork.

Treating raw request or usage volume as engagement

Most traffic in this domain is emitted by machines. Continuous-integration pipelines, scheduled batch jobs, synthetic monitors, backfills and client retries can all grow by an order of magnitude from one configuration change made by one engineer, and none of it represents a new decision to use the product. The inversion is what makes it dangerous: when the platform degrades, clients retry, so error-driven retry volume rises at the exact moment the customer is most likely to leave, and an engagement dashboard built on raw counts shows growth immediately before a churn. Filter on traffic_class and on successful status before anything else, and keep failed-request volume as its own separate series.

Building features from data that postdates the prediction time

Check every feature against the timestamp at which the model would actually score, and drop anything computed from a window that includes or follows the label event. For a forecasting use case, split train and test by time rather than at random, and split by entity when the same entity recurs.

Stopping an experiment the moment it crosses significance

Fix the sample size or duration before launch, or use a method built for continuous monitoring such as a sequential test, always-valid confidence intervals, or group-sequential boundaries. Repeatedly checking a fixed-horizon p-value against 0.05 pushes the real false-positive rate well above 5 percent.

Questions & practice

Describe a scenario where you would choose a Bayesian approach over frequentist testing.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.

Follow-up

How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?

Permutation-test a consumption experiment randomised at account level

Hard · permutation-test · heavy-tails · cuped · experiment-readout

An experiment randomised 900 accounts into two arms. You have one row per account: account_id, arm, consumption_28d (billable units after launch) and consumption_pre (the 28 days before). Consumption is heavy-tailed and the largest account is several percent of the total. Write a permutation test from scratch: winsorise at the pooled 99th percentile as a pre-registered rule, use the difference in arm means of the winsorised outcome as the statistic, and obtain a two-sided p-value from 20,000 relabellings of the account-level arm vector. Report the observed effect, the p-value, and the same test on a CUPED-adjusted outcome.

Approach

Be precise about what the permutation test needs. Under the sharp null of no effect for any account, the outcomes are exchangeable across arm labels, and the test is valid for ANY statistic T(outcomes, labels) provided the identical function is applied to the observed labels and to all 20,000 relabellings. The pooled 99th percentile is a function of the outcome vector alone, so recomputing it inside the loop returns the same number 20,000 times: that is wasted CPU, not a bias, and hoisting it out is an optimisation rather than a correctness fix. Say plainly that capping at all changes the estimand from mean consumption to mean capped consumption; it is not a neutral cleaning step.
The mistake that does invalidate the test is an asymmetry between the observed statistic and the permuted ones, and the easiest way to create it is to derive the cleaning rule from the observed arm labels and then freeze it — winsorise each arm at its own observed 99th percentile, hold those two caps fixed, and permute. The observed value is then computed with caps matched to its own partition while every relabelling is scored with caps belonging to a different one, so the null distribution no longer answers the question the p-value claims to answer. A per-arm cap recomputed consistently inside every permutation is a valid test, but it estimates a contrast whose two sides are capped at different thresholds, so prefer the pooled cap on estimand grounds and pre-register it.
Permute the account-level arm vector, because the account is the randomisation unit. Relabelling anything finer — users, workspaces, requests — generates a null distribution narrower than the design actually supports and returns p-values that are anti-conservative.
Vectorise the null: tile the treatment indicator into a (B, n) matrix and permute along axis 1 with rng.permuted(..., out=...). The statistic is a difference of means, so the treated sum alone determines it and the whole null is one matrix-vector product. Use the two-sided p-value (1 + count(|stat_perm| >= |stat_obs|)) / (B + 1); the plus-one on each side is not cosmetic, it keeps the p-value away from exactly zero and keeps the test valid at finite B.
For CUPED, fit theta = cov(y, x) / var(x) on the pooled data and use that same theta for the observed statistic and every relabelling. Pooled theta, like the pooled cap, carries no label information, so where in the loop you compute it is again only a performance question; fitting theta within arms is what goes wrong, because the adjusted outcome then depends on the labels and an observed-label fit frozen across all 20,000 relabellings breaks the match between observed and permuted statistics. x must be measured entirely before launch, which consumption_pre is. Expected variance reduction is about 1 - corr(y, x)^2; measure the achieved reduction from the two null distributions rather than asserting it.

Follow-up

The p-value is 0.04 with the cap and 0.31 without it. What do you report, and what did you pre-register?
Colleagues in a shared workspace can see the treated behaviour. How does that change the design and the estimate?
How many accounts would you need to detect a 5% lift given this outcome's distribution?

Quantify billable volume created by retries after server errors

Hard · telemetry-hygiene · pandas · unit-economics

From fct_api_request (request_id, account_id, endpoint, idempotency_key, is_retry, http_status, request_at, billable_units), measure how much billable volume in a 28-day window is retry traffic that followed a 5xx. Group requests into attempt chains by (account_id, endpoint, idempotency_key) ordered by request_at; a request is error-driven if any earlier attempt in its chain returned 5xx. Requests with a null idempotency_key cannot be chained, so report them as their own class rather than assuming each is unique. Return billable_units split into first-attempt, error-driven retry, other retry and unchainable, per account.

Approach

Split the population before measuring anything. A null idempotency_key is not a chain of one, it is an unknown; report its share of billable_units first, because if it is 40% of volume then the headline estimate is a lower bound and the deliverable has to say so.
Within chainable rows, sort by (account_id, endpoint, idempotency_key, request_at) and derive 'any earlier attempt failed' with arithmetic rather than a per-group lambda: with is5 = (http_status >= 500), the per-chain cumsum minus the row's own value is positive exactly when an earlier attempt in that chain returned 5xx. A groupby-apply gives the same answer and is unusable at five million rows.
Do not take is_retry as the definition. It is set by the client whenever an idempotency_key is resent, which covers retries after client-side timeouts and after 4xx as well; compute the flag yourself and then cross-tabulate it against is_retry, because the disagreement is a finding in its own right.
Aggregate billable_units by (account_id, class) and assert the classes sum to each account's total. The spine sets billable_units to zero on 5xx responses, so the failed attempt contributes nothing and the whole inflation sits in the successful retry that follows it.
Report the per-account share and look at its distribution, not the fleet total. One account in a retry storm dominates any blended figure, which is the same failure that makes a fleet-wide error rate useless.

Worked solution (40 min)

unchainable = df.idempotency_key.isna(); report df.loc[unchainable].groupby('account_id').billable_units.sum() before proceeding.
keys = ['account_id','endpoint','idempotency_key']; c = df[~unchainable].sort_values(keys + ['request_at'], kind='mergesort'); c['is5'] = (c.http_status >= 500).astype(int)
c['attempt_no'] = c.groupby(keys, sort=False).cumcount(); c['prior_5xx'] = (c.groupby(keys, sort=False).is5.cumsum() - c.is5) > 0
c['cls'] = np.where(c.attempt_no == 0, 'first_attempt', np.where(c.prior_5xx, 'error_driven_retry', 'other_retry')); out = pd.concat([c, df[unchainable].assign(cls='unchainable')]).groupby(['account_id','cls']).billable_units.sum().unstack(fill_value=0)

Expected result: A per-account table of four columns summing exactly to that account's total billable_units in the window. error_driven_retry is zero for any account with no 5xx; the fleet-level error-driven share is typically low single digits while a small number of accounts sit far above it.

Verify it yourself

out.sum(axis=1) equals df.groupby('account_id').billable_units.sum() for every account.
Every row classed error_driven_retry has attempt_no >= 1.
An account with no http_status >= 500 in the window has error_driven_retry == 0.
Cross-tabulating cls against is_retry: no first_attempt row should carry is_retry True, and any that do mark chains truncated by the window boundary.

Follow-up

An account's error-driven share is 22%. Is that the platform's fault or the client's, and what do you look at next?
How would you define a consumption-based north-star metric that an outage cannot inflate?
Chains straddle the 28-day boundary. How large is that bias and in which direction?

How would you structure a SQL query to identify users who churned after a specific feature update?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.

Follow-up

How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

Write a query using window functions to calculate a rolling average of user interactions over the last 30 days.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.

Follow-up

What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

Running commitment burn-down and the date consumption crosses it

Medium · window functions · running totals · committed consumption

fct_subscription_period gives committed_amount_cents, term_start_date and term_end_date for each account's current version where pricing_model = 'committed_consumption'. fct_usage_daily gives account_id, workspace_id, sku_code, usage_date and net_amount_cents, at one row per workspace and SKU per day. Inside each account's current term, return the running total of net_amount_cents by usage_date, the first usage_date on which that running total reaches committed_amount_cents, and the fraction of the term elapsed at that point. Accounts that have not reached their commitment must still appear, with a null crossing date.

Approach

Collapse usage to one row per (account_id, usage_date) first. The fact is grained by workspace and SKU, so a raw running total leaves several rows per date and the first-crossing date becomes dependent on the arbitrary order of rows inside that day.
Restrict to the term with usage_date BETWEEN term_start_date AND term_end_date on the account's current row, so no prior term's consumption leaks into this term's burn-down.
Compute SUM(net_cents) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY usage_date ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW). Name ROWS explicitly: the default frame is RANGE, which includes all peer rows at the same ORDER BY value and would hand back the whole day's total on each of that day's rows.
Extract the crossing with MIN(usage_date) FILTER (WHERE running_cents >= committed_amount_cents) grouped per account, which returns NULL for accounts still under commitment instead of dropping them.
Elapsed fraction is (crossing_date - term_start_date)::numeric / NULLIF(term_end_date - term_start_date, 0); Postgres date subtraction yields whole days, so the guard matters for same-day terms.
Exclude the trailing days still inside the metering settling window, measured from first_written_at against restated_at, and say how many days you cut and why.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build terms: SELECT account_id, committed_amount_cents, term_start_date, term_end_date FROM fct_subscription_period WHERE is_current AND pricing_model = 'committed_consumption' AND committed_amount_cents IS NOT NULL.
Build daily: join fct_usage_daily to terms on account_id with usage_date inside the term, then GROUP BY account_id, usage_date summing net_amount_cents.
Add running_cents with SUM(...) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY usage_date ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW).
Aggregate per account with MIN(usage_date) FILTER (WHERE running_cents >= committed_amount_cents) AS crossing_date, then compute the elapsed fraction with the NULLIF guard.
LEFT JOIN that summary back onto terms so every committed account appears, and verify the last running_cents per account equals a plain SUM over the term.

Expected result: A per-account-per-day series of running_cents inside the current term, plus one summary row per committed account carrying crossing_date and term_elapsed_fraction, with crossing_date NULL exactly for accounts whose final running total is below committed_amount_cents.

Verify it yourself

The maximum running_cents per account equals SUM(net_amount_cents) over that account's term computed independently.
crossing_date is NULL if and only if the final running total is below the commitment.
term_elapsed_fraction falls in [0, 1] for every non-null crossing date.
running_cents is non-decreasing within each account, which fails immediately if a negative credit row was included without comment.

Follow-up

Turn this into an end-of-term overage forecast. What breaks if you extrapolate a linear run rate on a consumption product?
An account crosses its commitment at 40 percent of the term. Is that an expansion signal or a billing-surprise risk, and what would you check to tell them apart?

A key product metric drops by 10% overnight. How do you investigate the root cause?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?

If you were launching a new recommendation model, what metrics would you prioritize?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

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

How do you balance long-term user retention against short-term engagement metrics?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

How would you design a metric to measure the success of a new AI-driven feature?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?

How do you determine the required sample size for an A/B test to ensure statistical significance?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.

Follow-up

What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
How would you handle interference between treated and control units?

How do you define "success" for an experimental AI research project?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.

Follow-up

How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
What would you do if you could not randomise at all?

Measure a repackaging that moves usage between metered SKUs

Hard · mix shift · sku migration · metering lag · unit economics

A repackaging moves work previously billed as compute_hours into build_minutes at a different rate. Early readouts show compute_hours down 30% and total net_amount_cents flat. You have fct_usage_daily (account_id, sku_code, usage_date, billable_quantity, net_amount_cents, cogs_cents, is_restated, first_written_at, restated_at) and fct_api_request (account_id, environment, traffic_class, http_status, compute_ms, egress_bytes, request_at). Design the metric that says whether real consumption changed rather than merely moving between SKUs, state the settling window you will wait for and how you measured it, and name the unit-economics guardrail. Deliver the metric definition and the readout you would take to a pricing decision.

Approach

Refuse to compare SKU-level quantity series across the change. billable_quantity carries a different unit per sku_code, so a 30% fall in compute_hours cannot be added to or netted against a rise in build_minutes. Any metric that sums billable_quantity across sku_code produces a number with no unit and no meaning.
Build a SKU-invariant measure of delivered work from fct_api_request instead: successful, non-synthetic, non-load-test production requests with sum(compute_ms) and sum(egress_bytes) per account per week. That series is unaffected by which SKU the billing system attributed the work to, which is exactly the property this question needs.
Measure the settling window before reading anything. For a sample of historical usage_date values, compare the total as first written against the settled total after restatement, and exclude as many trailing days as it takes for the delta to fall under a stated tolerance. The tail of every usage series slopes downward for this reason alone and is routinely misread as a regression, then explained, then fixed.
Compare like for like at the account grain against each account's own pre-period. Split accounts by whether their workload was in scope of the repackaging, and read the change in delivered work per account relative to its own 8-week pre-period level, reporting the median and interquartile range. A fleet mean is dominated by whichever account happened to scale one batch job, because account consumption is heavy-tailed.
Guardrail the economics rather than the revenue line. Compute gross margin per account from net_amount_cents and cogs_cents and report it as a distribution. Flat revenue with identical work moved onto a SKU carrying a higher cogs_cents allocation is a real margin loss that a flat revenue line conceals completely.

Worked solution (40 min)

Measure the settling window: for 30 historical usage_date values, compute total net_amount_cents as first written against the current settled value, and take the number of trailing days after which the delta falls below a stated tolerance such as 0.5%.
Build weekly per-account delivered work from fct_api_request: successful request count, sum(compute_ms) and sum(egress_bytes), filtered to traffic_class in ('interactive','batch') and environment = 'production'.
Split accounts into in-scope and out-of-scope for the repackaging and compute the change in delivered work per account relative to its own 8-week pre-period, reporting median and interquartile range rather than a mean.
Compute per-account monthly gross margin before and after from net_amount_cents and cogs_cents, and report the count and revenue share of accounts whose margin crossed below zero.
Reconcile the two sources and state why request-derived work and fct_usage_daily quantities will not tie exactly, naming retries, failed requests and restatement.

Expected result: A three-part readout: the empirically measured settling window in days, the median per-account change in delivered work (successful production requests and compute_ms) for in-scope against out-of-scope accounts measured relative to each account's own pre-period, and the per-account margin distribution before and after. The conclusion states whether consumption actually changed or merely moved between SKUs, and at no point adds quantities across sku_code.

Verify it yourself

Out-of-scope accounts should show no change in delivered work; movement there means the scope split is wrong or something else shipped in the same window.
The settling window must be measured rather than assumed; re-running the readout a week later must not move the final week's figures by more than the stated tolerance.
Total net_amount_cents across all SKUs before and after must reconcile to the invoiced total; a gap means restated rows were read mid-settlement.

Follow-up

Revenue is flat and delivered work is flat. Name the one thing that could still have got worse, and exactly where you would see it.
Packaging changes are usually applied to everyone at once. How would you design this as an experiment rather than a before-and-after, and what would you give up?

Activation drops six points starting at a deploy hour

Medium · instrumentation · release analysis · metric inputs

Seven-day activation, defined as an account's first request with http_status < 400, api_key_id not null and traffic_class <> 'synthetic_monitor' within 168 hours of created_at, fell six points for sign-up cohorts after a Tuesday. A client SDK major version shipped that morning. From fct_api_request (account_id, api_key_id, sdk_name, sdk_version, http_status, traffic_class, request_at) and dim_account (account_id, created_at, is_internal), decide whether activation actually fell or the metric's inputs changed, and state in advance what evidence would convince you of each.

Approach

Decompose the definition and recompute activation under each relaxation: status only, status plus traffic_class, then the full definition. If the entire drop lives in the api_key_id clause, this is an instrumentation question rather than a behavioural one.
Measure the null rate of api_key_id by sdk_version and by hour. A stamping change appears as a step at the deploy boundary confined to the new version; a behavioural change appears as a ramp that grows with adoption and leaves old-version traffic untouched.
Hold the cohort's SDK mix fixed before comparing. New sign-ups adopt the newest version first, so a cohort-level drop can be pure composition even when no individual version changed at all.
Corroborate with a source the release did not touch: whether the same cohorts appear in fct_usage_daily with non-zero billable_quantity, and whether their fct_support_ticket rows with category = 'onboarding' rose.
Write the decision rule down before looking at the answer. An instrumentation artefact predicts unchanged downstream usage and a version-confined null step; a real regression predicts falling downstream usage and more onboarding tickets in the same cohorts.

Follow-up

Old-version and new-version populations are not exchangeable, because new accounts adopt the new version first. How would you build a comparison that is not confounded by cohort age?
What backfill or metric-versioning policy keeps the historical series interpretable once you fix the stamping?

Suggested practice checklist

Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story 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 output rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

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

Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.

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

Day 3 — Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
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 your strongest area

Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.

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

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
Compare block by block, and 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 which single block you would still lose the offer on.

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

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud 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 being interrupted.

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

Where your data came from

Data people depend on systems owned by other teams, and much of the job is negotiating for instrumentation, access, or a fix to a broken pipeline. Prepare an example of getting something changed upstream that you did not control. Describe what you asked for, what you traded, and how you worked while you waited.

Given a table of event logs, how do you handle missing values or outliers before analysis?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Announce a metric fix that cuts the headline number

Medium · metric definitions · stakeholders · communication

Weekly active organisations, the count on the company dashboard, has never excluded rows where dim_account.is_internal is true, and it counts traffic with traffic_class in synthetic_monitor and load_test. Correcting both reduces that count by 11 percent and removes most of the growth reported over two quarters. The figure appears in a board deck and in two teams' quarterly goals, one written on the count and one on the weekly active organisation ratio, whose denominator is accounts whose account_status was in ('trial','free','active_paid') through the week. Decide the order in which you tell people, what the dashboard shows during the transition, and what you propose happens to goals already set against the old definition.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you can land a correction as an operational change with a plan attached, rather than as an announcement other people then have to clean up after.
Quantify each exclusion separately before telling anyone: internal accounts, synthetic monitors, load tests. Three known quantities are a discussion; one alarming total is an argument.
Be precise about which side of the metric each exclusion touches, because one team's goal is on a count and the other's is on a ratio. The traffic-class filters remove requests, so they shrink the numerator only. Dropping internal accounts removes them from the ratio's denominator as well, since internal accounts carry ordinary account_status values and therefore sit in that denominator. Internal accounts are active in almost every week while the real base is not, so the numerator loses a larger share than the denominator and the ratio falls by less than the count does. Compute both and say which one the 11 percent is before anybody assumes.
Check whether the trend changes, not only the level. A constant 11 percent shift is a rebasing and nothing more. A shift that widens over time means the reported growth was partly internal or synthetic, which makes the existing goals unachievable as written and changes what you are asking teams to do.
Sequence the disclosure: the metric owner and the two teams whose goals move first and privately, then the board channel with a written bridge, then the dashboard. The dashboard is last because a number that changes without explanation is read as instability rather than as a fix.
Run both series for one reporting period with the bridge visible, restate history rather than letting the series break at a date, and set the date the old series is removed.
Propose the goal treatment yourself: rebase each target by the shift measured on the metric that target is written against, rather than leaving each team to negotiate individually, which is where corrections of this kind usually die.

Follow-up

One team's quarterly goal is now unreachable. Rebase the target or let it miss, and what does each choice teach the organisation?
How would this have been caught when the metric was first defined?
What else on that dashboard shares this failure mode, and how would you find out this week?

Walk through an analysis you later discovered was wrong

Easy · data quality · error ownership · metering

Six weeks ago you reported that consumption fell 9 percent in the last week of the month, and a team spent a sprint investigating the cause. The fall was an artefact: rows in fct_usage_daily land late and are restated in place, and you queried before the tail had settled. Describe how you found the error, what you told the people who acted on it, and the control you put in place so this class of mistake cannot reach a dashboard again. Be specific about how the settling window was measured.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you self-report errors before someone else finds them, and whether your fix is structural rather than a promise to be more careful. Say plainly that the number was wrong and that a sprint was spent on it, before describing any diagnosis.
Establish the artefact quantitatively instead of asserting that data lands late. For each usage_date, compare the total as of first_written_at against the settled total and read the settling time off that curve, for example 97 percent of final by day three and 99.5 percent by day five.
Correct the record the same day, in the channel the original number went out in, to the same audience. The cost of the wasted sprint belongs in the correction, not in a footnote.
Make the fix structural: exclude a trailing lag window from every reportable figure, and make the reporting view return no rows inside that window rather than returning partial ones. A dashboard that shades unsettled days still gets read as a decline.
State what generalises. Any fact table restated in place has this failure mode, so the guard belongs at the source rather than on the one dashboard that embarrassed you. A strong answer ends with the class of error closed; a generic one ends with a lesson learned.

Follow-up

How did you choose the completeness threshold behind the lag window, and what would make you recalibrate it?
What did you say to the team that lost the sprint, and what did they say back?
Is there a legitimate case for showing the unsettled tail at all, and to whom?