Interview guides · ALEX - Alternative Experts

ALEX - Alternative Experts Software Engineer Interview Guide

ALEX - Alternative Experts Software Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, questions and how candidates describe the process.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at ALEX - Alternative Experts, you are tasked with building robust, scalable solutions that drive the company’s mission forward. This role is not merely about writing code; it is about solving complex technical challenges that directly impact the operational efficiency and strategic outcomes of the organization. You will work within a high-stakes environment where your ability to translate abstract requirements into functional, high-performance software is critical. You will collaborate closely with multidisciplinary teams, navigating a landscape that often involves specialized domains and rigorous technical standards.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at ALEX - Alternative Experts.

Focus areas

Programming Problem Solving
Coding Under Time Constraints
Algorithmic Thinking

The ALEX - Alternative Experts interview process

ALEX - Alternative Experts candidates report 3 rounds over 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening Call

A call with an internal recruiter to verify qualifications and gauge interest in the company.

What to demonstrate

A call with an internal recruiter to verify qualifications and gauge interest in the company
Depth in Programming Problem Solving

How to prepare

Be able to walk your CV end to end in two minutes, and say why this company specifically.
Have your salary expectations, notice period and location constraints ready, and ask for the rest of the loop in writing.

Technical Assessment

Completion of a coding challenge to evaluate proficiency with algorithms and data structures.

What to demonstrate

Completion of a coding challenge to evaluate proficiency with algorithms and data structures
Depth in Programming Problem Solving

How to prepare

Answer aloud and timed: Given your background in [Physics/STEM], how do you approach solving novel, high-level technical problems?
Answer aloud and timed: What is your experience with managing data structures in a high-load environment?

In-Person/Virtual Interview

An interview involving multiple team members focusing on past work, problem-solving, and team fit.

What to demonstrate

An interview involving multiple team members focusing on past work, problem-solving, and team fit
Depth in Programming Problem Solving

How to prepare

Answer aloud and timed: How do you handle edge cases when designing algorithms?
Answer aloud and timed: Describe a time you faced a conflict with a teammate; how was it resolved?

Where candidates lose points

Communicate your thought process

Even if you are stuck on a technical problem, explain your logic to the interviewer. They are often more interested in your problem-solving approach than the final answer.

Be ready for technical "should know" questions

If you have a specific degree, be prepared for questions that test your foundational knowledge in that field.

Showcase your curiosity

Ask insightful questions about the team’s current technical challenges or their development culture.

Always ask for clarification if a technical requirement seems ambiguous

It is better to ask early than to build a solution that doesn't meet the core need.

Questions & practice

Walk me through your thought process when you receive a new, ambiguous technical requirement.

Medium · Process and Methodology

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.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

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

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.

Follow-up

The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?

Find overlapping job attempts and peak concurrency from lease records

Medium · sweep line · intervals · leases

A day of job_run history yields about 50,000,000 attempt records: (job_run_id, job_type, attempt, started_at, finished_at which is NULL when the worker died, lease_expires_at). Leases expire on a clock, so a job that outran its lease ran twice. Produce (a) every job_run_id whose attempts overlapped in wall-clock time and (b) the peak number of simultaneously running attempts per job_type with the minute it occurred. Target O(n log n). State how you treat a NULL finished_at and what clock skew does to your answer.

Approach

Define the interval before sorting anything: an attempt occupies [started_at, COALESCE(finished_at, lease_expires_at)). finished_at is observed and lease_expires_at is only a promise, so every attempt without a finish contributes an estimate and the whole result is a lower bound on overlap rather than an exact count.
For peak concurrency, sweep: emit 2n endpoints, sort by (timestamp, kind) with ends ordered before starts at equal timestamps, then walk the sequence maintaining a counter per job_type and record each type's maximum with its timestamp. O(n log n) dominated by the sort, O(n) space, or O(1) extra if the sort is external and the walk streams.
For overlap detection, do not compare attempts pairwise. A single global sort by (job_run_id, started_at) gives both the grouping and the order; within a group, keep the maximum end seen so far and report an overlap exactly when the next start is less than that running maximum, which is one linear pass after the sort.
Half-open intervals matter and are easy to get wrong: with closed intervals an attempt ending at the same millisecond another begins reads as concurrency two, and across 50,000,000 records that artefact swamps the real signal.

Follow-up

A handler is not idempotent and you have found 400 overlapping jobs. Which of them actually caused damage, and what would you query to find out?
Peak concurrency for one job_type is 4 against a configured cap of 4. Is the cap working, or is the data hiding attempts that never started?

Write the update path that detects a concurrent edit

Medium · optimistic concurrency · transactional outbox · audit history

resource carries version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 1. resource_revision holds revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch JSONB, request_id, created_at with UNIQUE (resource_id, version). outbox_event holds aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status. A PUT carries the version the client read. Write the exact statements for the single transaction that applies the edit, records the revision and enqueues 'resource.updated', and give the handler's branch on zero affected rows. Then say what PostgreSQL 16 does under READ COMMITTED when two of these updates hit one row at once.

Approach

One transaction, three writes, no network call inside it: UPDATE resource SET title = $3, version = version + 1, updated_at = now() WHERE resource_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $4 AND version = $2; then INSERT the resource_revision row at version $2 + 1; then INSERT the outbox_event row at the same aggregate_version. The event goes to a table rather than a broker because no transaction spans both.
Branch on the affected-row count before doing anything else. Zero has three causes — stale version, wrong tenant, row gone — so re-read once and map to 409 carrying the current version, or 404 for an id outside the caller's tenant, which also stops the endpoint confirming that another tenant's id exists.
State the engine behaviour instead of assuming it. Under READ COMMITTED the second UPDATE blocks on the row lock, and when the first commits PostgreSQL re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the newly committed row, so the version predicate now fails and the statement reports zero rows. Under REPEATABLE READ the identical collision raises SQLSTATE 40001 instead, so the handler must fold both shapes into one conflict response.
Keep UNIQUE (resource_id, version) even though the predicate already serialises writers. It is what makes a lost update unwritable if any other path ever reaches the revision table, and it converts a logic bug into 23505 rather than into a silently missing history row.

Follow-up

A client sends the version it read ten minutes ago and the resource has moved three versions. What is in your 409 so it can resolve the conflict without a full re-fetch?
Two editors, two disjoint fields, no overlap. Does your answer still refuse the second write, and should it?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.

Approach

Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.

Follow-up

A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?

How do you ensure your code is maintainable and scalable?

Medium · Technical and Domain Proficiency

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Given your background in [Physics/STEM], how do you approach solving novel, high-level technical problems?

Medium · Technical and Domain Proficiency

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you verify the correctness of your code before submitting it for review?

Medium · Process and Methodology

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you balance the need for rapid delivery with the necessity for high-quality code?

Medium · Process and Methodology

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Explain your process for debugging a complex system error.

Medium · Technical and Domain Proficiency

Approach

Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.
Pick a bisection that eliminates candidates whichever way it turns out.
Check the instrumentation before believing the symptom.
Separate the trigger from the cause; the deploy is rarely the bug.

Follow-up

What would you look at first, and what would it rule out?
How would you tell a cause from a coincidence here?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics ALEX - Alternative Experts candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the ALEX - Alternative Experts loop

Write out the reported sequence: Initial Screening Call, Technical Assessment, In-Person/Virtual Interview.
For each round, write one sentence on what it is judging, from the description above, and mark the one you are least ready for.

Deliverable: A one-page map of the 3 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Programming Problem Solving

Spend the session on Programming Problem Solving, which ALEX - Alternative Experts candidates report being tested on.
Write one worked example in Programming Problem Solving and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Programming Problem Solving.

Day 3 — Work Coding Under Time Constraints

Spend the session on Coding Under Time Constraints, which ALEX - Alternative Experts candidates report being tested on.
Write one worked example in Coding Under Time Constraints and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Coding Under Time Constraints.

Day 4 — Work Algorithmic Thinking

Spend the session on Algorithmic Thinking, which ALEX - Alternative Experts candidates report being tested on.
Write one worked example in Algorithmic Thinking and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Algorithmic Thinking.

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical and Domain Proficiency

Answer aloud, timed: Explain your process for debugging a complex system error.
Answer aloud, timed: How do you ensure your code is maintainable and scalable?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Technical and Domain Proficiency question(s), under time.

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Behavioral and Situational Awareness

Answer aloud, timed: Describe a time you faced a conflict with a teammate; how was it resolved?
Answer aloud, timed: How do you prioritize tasks when faced with competing deadlines?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Behavioral and Situational Awareness question(s), under time.

Day 7 — Answer out loud: Process and Methodology

Answer aloud, timed: Walk me through your thought process when you receive a new, ambiguous technical requirement.
Answer aloud, timed: How do you verify the correctness of your code before submitting it for review?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Process and Methodology question(s), under time.

Behavioural preparation

Behavioural rounds judge the decision you made and what it cost.

What is your experience with managing data structures in a high-load environment?

Medium · Technical and Domain Proficiency

Approach

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

How do you handle edge cases when designing algorithms?

Medium · Technical and Domain Proficiency

Approach

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