Interview guides · Allison Transmission

Allison Transmission Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist prep for Allison Transmission: practice defining a product and business analytics metric, picking its guardrails and defending the tradeoff.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Allison Transmission, you are positioned at the intersection of industrial innovation and advanced analytics. Allison Transmission is a global leader in the design and manufacture of propulsion solutions, and this role is critical in transforming raw operational and manufacturing data into actionable insights that optimize efficiency, product reliability, and performance.

Scope your preparation by the data you would actually touch, because the title will not tell you. A seat that lives in event logs and weekly readouts rewards fluency in aggregation and metric definitions; a seat that owns a model in production rewards fluency in train/serve skew, retraining cadence and drift monitoring. The fastest way to find out which one you are interviewing for is to ask what the team shipped last quarter and what it gets paged about.

Focus areas

Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
Pick a randomisation unit that respects interference
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

You will work on high-impact projects that directly influence the engineering and product development lifecycles. Whether you are analyzing sensor data from transmissions, optimizing supply chain logistics, or evaluating the success of new product features, your work will directly affect how Allison Transmission maintains its competitive edge in the heavy-duty vehicle market. This is a role for those who enjoy solving complex, real-world engineering problems through a lens of rigorous data science.

You will find that the culture at Allison Transmission is highly collaborative. Interviewers value clear communication and the ability to explain complex technical findings to stakeholders without a data background.

The Allison Transmission interview process

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

Initial Screening

Whoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.

What to demonstrate

Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed

How to prepare

Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands

Technical Round

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

Meetings with Hiring Managers

Much of this round runs on your own history, but the manager is not collecting a project list. They are working out what it is like when something goes wrong on your watch: how late the bad news tends to arrive, and whether a number you hand over has been checked by anyone including you. That is why the strongest material is a project where you can describe the part that did not work and what it cost. A result you cannot take full responsibility for, however clean, gives them nothing to trust you with afterwards.

What to demonstrate

Whether you volunteer the limits of a result you are proud of, or wait to be pushed onto them
How errors surfaced in your past work, and whether you or somebody else found them
Whether the scope you claim matches the level of detail you can still produce about it
What you did the first time a stakeholder acted on something of yours that turned out to be wrong

How to prepare

Rebuild one headline figure from memory down to the join and the filter, so a question about the denominator does not stall the conversation
For each project you raise, write the sentence you would say to someone who had already acted on a number that later turned out wrong
Mark which parts of a project were yours and which belonged to other people, and state that boundary yourself before anyone asks

Where candidates lose points

Slicing a flat experiment until a segment reaches significance

Testing one metric across twenty segments at a nominal 5% level produces a significant result about two thirds of the time when nothing is happening anywhere, and the segment that surfaces is by construction the one with the most favourable noise. The reported effect in that slice is then badly overstated, because selection on significance conditions the estimate on being large. What makes it dangerous rather than merely wrong is that a post-hoc segment always has a plausible story attached, so it survives the meeting. The controls are declaring the small number of segments of interest before launch, correcting across the ones tested, and treating anything discovered afterwards as a hypothesis that needs its own adequately-powered test rather than a finding.

Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel

The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.

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.

SQL that silently fans out on a one-to-many join

State the grain of each table and the grain you want in the result before writing the join. Pre-aggregate the many side to the join key, or use EXISTS or a window function, and verify with a row count against COUNT(DISTINCT id) rather than trusting that the numbers look plausible.

Questions & practice

Simulate the false positive cost of repeated peeking

Medium · simulation · peeking · type i error

Quantify the cost of peeking. Simulate a two-arm experiment with no true effect: each arm accumulates Bernoulli conversions at a base rate of 0.10 up to 40,000 units per arm. Run a two-sided two-proportion z-test at alpha 0.05 at ten equally spaced interim points, and record whether the test ever crossed. Report the false positive rate over at least 10,000 replications, alongside the rate for a single look at the final sample only. Use a fixed seed and report a Monte Carlo standard error on both figures.

Approach

Generate each replication as two cumulative sums of Bernoulli draws, then read the interim points off the cumulative arrays. Regenerating data at each look would make the looks independent, which destroys exactly the dependence the exercise is about: later looks share data with earlier ones.
Use the pooled-variance two-proportion z: p_pool = (x1+x2)/(n1+n2), z = (p1-p2) / sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)), reject when |z| > 1.96. State that the normal approximation is fine here because the smallest look has roughly 400 expected conversions per arm.
Vectorise across replications rather than looping: draw a (reps, n) array of uniforms, threshold at 0.10, cumsum along axis 1 and slice the ten look indices. A per-replication loop at 10,000 by 40,000 is unnecessarily slow.
Record the any-cross indicator per replication, take the mean, and compute the Monte Carlo standard error as sqrt(p*(1-p)/reps) so the reported figure comes with its own precision.
Report the single-look rate in the same run as a control. If it does not land near 0.05, the bug is in the test statistic and not in the peeking argument.

Follow-up

Re-run with 40 looks instead of 10. Why does the curve flatten rather than continue rising linearly?
Among the replications that crossed, what is the mean observed lift, and why is it not zero?
What does an O'Brien-Fleming boundary or an always-valid confidence sequence change about this simulation, and what does each cost in power?

Rebuild per-visitor ordering without groupby convenience methods

Easy · pandas · vectorisation · window logic

You have a DataFrame of 2 million fct_event rows with visitor_id, occurred_at_utc and event_id, unsorted and containing duplicate timestamps within a visitor. Produce three new columns: event_rank, the 1-based position of the event within its visitor ordered by occurred_at_utc; seconds_since_prev, the gap to that visitor's previous event, NULL for the first; and is_first_for_visitor. You may use sort_values, shift, cumsum, numpy and boolean masking. You may not use groupby.transform, groupby.apply, groupby.cumcount, groupby.rank or merge_asof. Break timestamp ties on event_id.

Approach

Sort once by ['visitor_id', 'occurred_at_utc', 'event_id'] and reset the index. The whole exercise reduces to row arithmetic on a sorted frame, and the tiebreak on event_id is what makes the result reproducible across runs.
Mark visitor boundaries with is_first = df['visitor_id'].ne(df['visitor_id'].shift()). This is the single fact every other column derives from.
Compute seconds_since_prev as the diff of the timestamp column, then overwrite it with NaT/NaN wherever is_first is True. The shift crosses the boundary between visitors and will otherwise hand the first row of each visitor the last event of the previous one.
Build event_rank from a running counter that resets at boundaries: take a global cumulative position (np.arange(len(df))) and subtract, per row, the global position at which that visitor started. Get the start position by forward-filling the positions where is_first is True, which is a cumsum-free reset and is O(n).
Verify against the forbidden method once, as a test rather than as the implementation, and confirm the two agree on every row.

Follow-up

The frame does not fit in memory. How does your approach change if you can only process one visitor-partitioned chunk at a time?
occurred_at_utc is client-supplied and sometimes runs backwards within a visitor. Does your seconds_since_prev go negative, and should it?
How would you extend this to reset the counter at every change of surface as well as visitor?

Cluster bootstrap for a per-session rate randomised on users

Hard · cluster bootstrap · randomisation unit · variance

An experiment randomised on user_id reports a per-session conversion rate, so sessions inside a user are correlated. Input: one row per session with user_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}. Write a cluster bootstrap from scratch: resample users with replacement within each arm, keep every session of a drawn user, recompute each arm's ratio of converted sessions to sessions, and take the difference. Return the point estimate, a 95 percent percentile interval from at least 2,000 resamples, the naive session-level interval that ignores clustering, and the ratio of their widths.

Approach

Name the estimand precisely: it is a ratio of sums, sum(converted) over sum(sessions) within an arm, not the mean of per-user rates. Those differ whenever session counts vary across users, and the ratio is what the reported metric is.
Resample the cluster, not the row. Draw n_users user ids with replacement inside each arm and take every session belonging to each draw, including duplicate draws of the same user. Keeping the user count fixed per arm rather than the session count is what preserves the sampling design.
Precompute per-user (converted_sum, session_count) once, so each resample is two vector lookups and a division rather than a repeated filter over the session frame. That turns 2,000 resamples from minutes into under a second.
Take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the 2,000 differences for the interval, and report the point estimate from the full data rather than from the bootstrap mean, since the bootstrap mean carries the resampling bias.
Compute the naive interval from the session-level binomial standard error and compare widths. The expected inflation is roughly sqrt(1 + (m-1)*rho), with m the mean sessions per user and rho the intraclass correlation of converted within users, so a computed ratio far from that value points at a bug in one of the two intervals.

Worked solution (35 min)

per_user = df.groupby(['variant','user_id'])['converted'].agg(['sum','size']); split into two arrays per arm.
point = (t_sum.sum() / t_n.sum()) - (c_sum.sum() / c_n.sum()).
For b in range(B): idx = rng.integers(0, len(t_sum), len(t_sum)); ratio_t = t_sum[idx].sum() / t_n[idx].sum(); same for control; store the difference. Vectorise by drawing a (B, n) index matrix if memory allows.
ci = np.percentile(diffs, [2.5, 97.5]); naive_se = sqrt(p_t*(1-p_t)/n_sessions_t + p_c*(1-p_c)/n_sessions_c); naive_ci = point +/- 1.96*naive_se.
width_ratio = (ci[1]-ci[0]) / (naive_ci[1]-naive_ci[0]).

Expected result: A point estimate identical to the full-data ratio difference, a percentile interval containing that point estimate, and a width ratio greater than 1 whose value approximates sqrt(1 + (m-1)*rho) for the data's mean cluster size m and intraclass correlation rho. A ratio of approximately 1.0 means sessions were resampled instead of users.

Verify it yourself

Construct data where every user has exactly one session: the cluster and naive intervals then agree to within Monte Carlo error, since m = 1 makes the design effect 1.
Construct data where converted is constant within each user: rho is 1, and the width ratio should approach sqrt(m).
The bootstrap distribution's mean sits close to the point estimate; a large offset means the resampled arms have drifted in size.
Doubling B narrows the Monte Carlo noise in the percentile endpoints without shifting the interval's centre.

Follow-up

Users average 3.4 sessions and the intraclass correlation is 0.12. What width ratio do you predict before running it, and does your bootstrap land there?
Give the delta-method standard error for this ratio and say when you would prefer it to the bootstrap.
Half the users in the treatment arm have exactly one session. What does that do to the cluster bootstrap's coverage, and how would you check it?

Given these three tables, write a query to identify the top 5 performing units per region.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.

Follow-up

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

Write a query using SQL window functions to calculate a rolling average of transmission performance metrics.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
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?

How would you handle missing values or data quality issues in a large-scale manufacturing dataset?

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

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

Read an experiment from first exposure, not assignment

Hard · experiments · window-functions · srm

fct_experiment_exposure holds experiment_id, unit_type, unit_id, variant, user_id, assigned_at_utc, first_exposed_at_utc, is_in_analysis_population and planned_end_utc. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, and carries events up to a known data cut, :data_cut_utc. For one experiment randomised on unit_type = 'user', return per variant: exposed units, units with at least one core action in the seven days after that unit's own first exposure, the rate, and the variant share of exposed units. Only units whose seven-day window has fully elapsed as of the data cut belong in the readout. Units appearing under more than one variant are excluded from both arms and counted separately.

Approach

Run the contamination pass as an aggregate, not a window: SELECT unit_id FROM fct_experiment_exposure WHERE experiment_id = :exp GROUP BY unit_id HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT variant) > 1, then anti-join it away. PostgreSQL rejects COUNT(DISTINCT variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) outright, since DISTINCT is not implemented for window functions; if you want the test inline, MIN(variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) <> MAX(variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) is the equivalent that does run.
Do not resolve contamination by keeping the earliest variant. A unit that saw both arms carries treatment from both, so assigning it to either one biases that arm.
Define the population as is_in_analysis_population = TRUE AND unit_type = 'user' AND first_exposed_at_utc < planned_end_utc AND first_exposed_at_utc + interval '7 days' <= :data_cut_utc. The horizon filter is what makes the readout reproducible next week instead of drifting with every re-run; the data-cut filter is the one that actually buys seven days of follow-up, since a unit exposed an hour before the horizon otherwise contributes an hour of observation to a seven-day rate.
Measure the outcome on a per-unit relative window: LEFT JOIN fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and occurred_at_utc in [first_exposed_at_utc, first_exposed_at_utc + interval '7 days'). LEFT JOIN so units with no outcome stay in the denominator at zero rather than being deleted by an inner join.
Check the sample ratio before reading the effect: variant share of exposed units against the intended split, tested as a binomial. Run it on the truncated population as well as on the full exposed set, because if one arm exposes later on average the data-cut filter removes more of that arm and can manufacture a ratio mismatch the randomisation did not have. A mismatch on the full set means the exposure data is not a valid randomisation and invalidates the readout rather than being a footnote under it.
Report the per-variant rate, the absolute difference, and the fact that the variance unit is unit_id. That is straightforward here only because the grain is already one row per user; a per-session outcome under user randomisation would need a delta-method or bootstrap standard error instead.

Worked solution (35 min)

Count units per variant and units with more than one variant; report the contaminated count before anything else.
Build the exposed population CTE with both the horizon filter and the seven-days-before-data-cut filter, assert one row per unit_id, and record per variant how many units the second filter removed.
LEFT JOIN the bounded outcome events and flag conversion with a boolean aggregate.
Aggregate per variant to exposed, converted, rate and share, and run the binomial check on the share, both before and after the truncation.
Re-run with a fixed calendar window from experiment_start_utc and record the difference as the size of the dilution you avoided.

Expected result: One row per variant with exposed, converted, rate and share, plus a scalar count of excluded contaminated units. Every retained unit was first exposed at least seven days before the data cut, so each one has a full seven days of observation and the rates are directly comparable.

Verify it yourself

Exposed counts across variants sum to the population count minus the contaminated units.
MAX(first_exposed_at_utc) among retained units is at least seven days before :data_cut_utc.
Variant shares sum to 1.
No unit_id contributes to two variant rows.
The truncation drops a similar share of each arm; if it does not, note the imbalance alongside the SRM result rather than reading the effect.
Swapping the relative window for a calendar one changes the rates; if it does not, exposure timing is balanced and you can say so.

Follow-up

Some units were assigned days before they were exposed. What does analysing the assigned set instead do to the estimated effect, and in which direction?
The split is 51/49 on 400,000 exposed units. Do you read the result?
The treatment arm exposes on average two days later than control. What does that do to a fixed calendar outcome window, and which arm does it favour?

How do you prioritize your tasks when working across multiple engineering teams?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

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

How would you define the success metrics for a new diagnostic tool for our transmissions?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

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?

If we notice a sudden drop in a key performance metric, how would you go about diagnosing the root cause?

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.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

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?

What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you have encountered in your previous work?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

How would you design an A/B test to measure the impact of a software update on transmission efficiency?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.

Follow-up

What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

Size an activation test before anyone writes code

Easy · power · minimum detectable effect · proportions

A team wants to test a new onboarding checklist against the seven-day activation rate: users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least two distinct UTC dates inside the first seven days, counted from dim_user.account_created_at_utc with is_internal = FALSE. Baseline is 22%. Weekly non-internal signups are 9,000, split evenly between two arms. State the minimum detectable effect after two weeks of enrolment, the enrolment needed to detect a 1.5 percentage point absolute lift, and the earliest date a readout would be honest.

Approach

Use the two-proportion sizing shortcut n = 16 p(1-p) / d^2 per arm, where d is the absolute lift. The 16 is 2(1.96 + 0.84)^2 = 15.7 rounded, i.e. two-sided alpha 0.05, 80% power, equal arms.
Invert it for the MDE at fixed n: d = sqrt(16 p(1-p) / n). Two weeks gives 9,000 per arm, so d = sqrt(2.746 / 9000) = 0.0175, which is 1.75 percentage points absolute or 7.9% relative on a 22% base.
Run it forward for d = 0.015: n = 2.746 / 0.000225 = 12,202 per arm, 24,404 total, about 2.7 weeks of enrolment. Round up to three whole weeks so the enrolment window contains no partial week, since signups are not uniform across weekdays.
Add the metric's own lag rather than reporting the enrolment end date. Activation is unobservable until seven days after the last enrolled signup, and the definition publishes on an eight-day lag, so the readout lands 29 days after launch.
Close by testing whether the ask is realistic. If the team's honest prior is a 0.5pp lift, the requirement is about 110,000 per arm and roughly 24 weeks of enrolment, and saying so before launch is the deliverable.

Worked solution (20 min)

Compute p(1-p) = 0.22 x 0.78 = 0.1716 and 16 x 0.1716 = 2.746.
MDE at two weeks: n = 4,500 per arm per week x 2 = 9,000; d = sqrt(2.746 / 9000) = 0.0175.
Sample for d = 0.015: n = 2.746 / 0.000225 = 12,202 per arm, which is 2.71 weeks of enrolment, so enrol three whole weeks.
Readout date = 21 days of enrolment + 8 days of follow-up and publication lag = 29 days from launch.
State the boundary of what this quarter can answer: below roughly 0.7pp the requirement passes 56,000 per arm and more than a full quarter of enrolment.

Expected result: MDE after two weeks is 1.75 percentage points absolute, 7.9% relative. Detecting 1.5pp needs 12,202 users per arm, so three weeks of enrolment and a readout 29 days after launch. Detecting 0.5pp needs about 110,000 per arm, roughly 24 weeks, which is the answer the team needs to hear before the code is written.

Verify it yourself

MDE must fall as 1 / sqrt(n). Doubling enrolment from two weeks to four should move 1.75pp to 1.24pp, not to 0.88pp.
Substituting d = 0.0175 back into 16 p(1-p) / d^2 must return about 9,000 per arm.
An exact two-proportion calculator at alpha 0.05 two-sided, power 0.80, p1 = 0.22, p2 = 0.235 returns about 12,260 per arm, within half a percent of the shortcut.

Follow-up

The team also wants trial-to-paid read from the same test. What does a second primary metric do to your alpha, and what would you actually do about it?
Signups are heavier on weekdays. What goes wrong if enrolment runs 17 days instead of 14?
The activation definition uses a two-distinct-days threshold. If that were loosened to one day, what happens to the baseline rate and to the sample you need?

Gross revenue churn doubled with no cancellations behind it

Hard · billing-periods · fx · revenue-churn · decomposition

Gross monthly revenue churn computed from fct_subscription_period doubled from 1.8% to 3.6% in one month. The support queue shows no rise in cancellations and renewals look normal. You have fct_subscription_period with subscription_id, account_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, mrr_cents, mrr_cents_constant_fx, seats_billed, period_status, change_reason and canceled_at_utc, plus dim_account. Decompose the 1.8-point rise into named mechanisms, size each in points of the headline, and state the remainder you cannot explain.

Approach

Reconstruct the numerator row by row and group it by change_reason before arguing about causes. A mid-period plan or seat change closes the current period row and opens a new one, so any implementation that treats a closed row as lost revenue books upgrades, downgrades and seat changes as churn; the change_reason breakdown of the numerator makes that visible in one query.
Check the recognition timestamp. Churn belongs at period_end_utc, because revenue continues until the period ends, not at canceled_at_utc when the button was pressed. Then count period_end_utc rows per month across thirteen months: annual cohorts concentrate their period ends in the month twelve months after they were signed, so a spike that repeats in the same month last year is seasonality in the book, not an event this month.
Recompute the whole numerator and denominator on mrr_cents_constant_fx. If the constant-currency figure is materially flatter, the move is an exchange-rate translation and belongs nowhere in a churn narrative.
Check period_status handling. Rows with period_status = 'past_due' are dunning, not cancellation; a status-based rule counts them as loss while a period-end rule does not, and a dunning backlog can move the number by itself.
Express every mechanism in points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual explicitly next to the month-to-month standard deviation of the prior twelve months. A decomposition without a stated remainder is a story, not an accounting.

Follow-up

Which of these mechanisms should be fixed in the metric definition and which should be reported as a genuine business fact?
How would you present a month whose churn is dominated by an annual cohort anniversary without the audience concluding the business is deteriorating?
What would you change so that an upgrade can never enter the churn numerator again, and how would you test that it worked?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.

Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.

Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.

Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.

Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.

Day 5 — Write SQL the way you will have to write it live

Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.

Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.

Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.

Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.

Rigour against a deadline

Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.

Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex technical finding to a non-technical stakeholder.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Handle a request for numbers supporting a decision already made

Hard · integrity · framing · stakeholder

A senior leader has already decided to sunset a plan tier and asks you for the analysis showing it is the right call. Accounts on that tier carry 6% of MRR at constant FX and have the highest licensed-seat utilisation in the book. The leader's support matters to your next review cycle, and the decision is being presented in four days. Deliver what you produce, what you decline to produce, and the exact sentence you will say in the meeting where the number appears on a slide.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can find the legitimate request inside an illegitimate framing instead of either complying or refusing on principle. The generic answer promises to push back; the strong one produces something genuinely useful and states its limits in the room, without ambushing anybody.
Separate the decision from the justification. Sunsetting the tier may be correct for reasons the data does not hold, such as support cost, roadmap surface area or sales motion. What you decline is a one-sided document. What you produce is the case read both ways, which also happens to be more useful to the leader.
Build the symmetric analysis: MRR at risk at constant FX, the share of affected accounts with a plausible migration path given seats_licensed and billing_term, the recovery rate assumed for that migration and where it came from, and the downside case in which high-utilisation accounts treat the sunset as a reason to re-evaluate the vendor entirely.
Surface the inconvenient fact privately and early. The highest seat utilisation in the book is a retention signal, and the leader should hold it before the room does, so they can incorporate it rather than be caught by it.
Agree the meeting sentence in advance with the leader, so that nobody is surprised. Something to the effect that the tier is 6% of MRR and its accounts are the most heavily used in the book, and that the case for sunsetting rests on cost and focus rather than on revenue. That is true, it supports the decision on its real grounds, and it stops the deck claiming the numbers endorse it.
Decide your own line before you need it: what you will not put your name to, and that the route if asked anyway is your own manager rather than a confrontation in the meeting.

Follow-up

The deck circulates with your analysis included and the downside case removed. What do you do, and by when?
What changes if the honest analysis says the sunset is clearly the wrong call?
How do you write the same memo when the leader is your skip-level and the meeting is tomorrow?

Disagree with a product manager's roadmap claim using data

Medium · causal inference · selection bias · stakeholder

A product manager proposes building a feature on the argument that accounts connecting an integration in week one retain three times better at week four. The figure is correctly computed from dim_user and fct_event, and it has already been shown to leadership. You have one scheduled 1:1 before the roadmap locks. Deliver the specific analysis you would run to test whether the relationship is causal, the result that would change your own mind, and how you open the conversation so that the PM is not put in the position of defending the number in public.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can separate a number being right from an inference being wrong, and do it without costing the PM face. The generic answer recites that correlation is not causation; the strong one names the specific confound and proposes the cheapest design that could distinguish the explanations.
State the alternative concretely. Accounts that connect an integration in week one are accounts that already have a workflow and a technical owner, so week-one intent plausibly drives both the connection and week-four retention. The selection is on intent, which no amount of post-hoc adjustment observes.
Order the discriminating analyses by cost. First, condition on pre-connection activity by comparing retention within strata of week-one core-action count, which removes the crude version of the confound but not unobserved intent. Second, look for variation in integration availability that was unrelated to intent, such as a staggered release or an outage window. Third, an encouragement design that randomises a prompt to connect and reads the intent-to-treat effect on week-four retention, which is the only version that identifies an effect.
Run the timing check, because it is nearly free and it is the most persuasive single piece of evidence. If the retention advantage among connectors is already visible before any of them connected, the causal story is largely finished.
Pre-commit to what would change your mind and say it before you show anything: if the gap survives stratification and the encouragement arm moves week-four retention at all, the feature has a case and you will say so.
Open the 1:1 by agreeing with the true part, that the correlation is real and worth chasing, then ask what effect size the roadmap plan assumes. That makes the size of the claim the topic instead of its authorship.

Follow-up

The encouragement test needs six weeks and the roadmap locks in two. What do you recommend in the interim?
Stratifying on week-one activity closes half the gap. What do you conclude, and what do you still not know?
How would you word this in the roadmap document so the PM's original number is reframed rather than deleted?