Interview guides · ALSTOM

ALSTOM Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

A two-week prep plan for ALSTOM data scientist candidates: write your answer before reading the solution, revisit misses three days later.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at ALSTOM, you will sit at the intersection of industrial innovation and advanced analytics. ALSTOM operates at the cutting edge of sustainable mobility, and your role is to translate massive datasets—ranging from railway infrastructure telemetry to passenger flow patterns—into actionable insights that drive engineering efficiency and operational excellence. Your work directly influences how the world moves, making this a high-impact position where data-driven decisions determine the safety, reliability, and sustainability of global transit systems.

Most of the loop measures decision-making under uncertainty rather than recall. You are scored on whether you state your assumptions, commit to an estimate you can defend, and say explicitly what evidence would change it.

Focus areas

Read vintage curves, not blended portfolio averages
Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD
Report only matured cohorts for loss metrics

Overview

This role requires a blend of rigorous technical expertise and a product-oriented mindset. You will be expected to identify opportunities to optimize complex systems, diagnose performance metrics, and build predictive models that solve real-time operational challenges. Whether you are improving predictive maintenance schedules or optimizing energy consumption in fleet management, your contributions will be central to ALSTOM’s mission of shaping the future of transportation.

The ALSTOM interview process

ALSTOM candidates report 4 rounds · ≈ 3-5 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 Evaluations

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

Behavioral Assessments

Behavioural answers from data candidates get audited in a way that answers from other roles do not. When you say a model lifted retention, the next question is the denominator, the window, and how you knew the lift was not seasonal. So attach the measurement to each claim while you tell it: what the metric was before, over what period, and against what comparison. Numbers with no baseline read as rounded-up memory, and one unsupported figure tends to make the rest of the story sound rehearsed.

What to demonstrate

Whether each impact number arrives with a baseline, a window and a comparison, or as a bare percentage
Whether you can name the method that attributed the effect to your work (an experiment, a staged rollout, a seasonal control) or concede the link was correlational
Whether the magnitudes stay internally consistent when the interviewer multiplies them against the scale you described earlier

How to prepare

For each story, write the impact line as metric, value before, value after, window, and how attribution was established. Any line missing two of those five is a follow-up you will answer badly.
Re-derive one headline number from the source table rather than the deck that reported it. Resume numbers drift upward across retellings.
Decide in advance which figures you cannot share, and prepare the ratio or relative change you can give instead, so a confidentiality limit does not read as evasion.

Final Evaluation

Where a loop ends with a senior leader, that conversation is rarely another skills test. The technical signal already exists by then, so the questions tend to open up: what you would look at first, where a metric you have heard about could mislead, what you would push back on. The decision being made is scope, which in practice means level and how much you would be trusted to own unsupervised. Treating it as a formality is the usual mistake. An open question late in the day is still being scored, and a vague answer reads as someone who has not run anything themselves.

What to demonstrate

Whether your view of the business has anything specific behind it, given that you are working only from what is public and are expected to say so
Whether the scope of work you describe owning matches the scope of the role, instead of sitting a level below it
Whether you can disagree with something concrete and stay useful about it, rather than agreeing with everything said in the room
Whether your questions are ones only this person could answer, as opposed to ones the recruiter already covered

How to prepare

Build one view you could defend for two minutes using only public information: what the funnel probably looks like, which metric likely drives decisions, and where that metric could mislead. Being wrong for a stated reason survives this round; having no view does not
Write down the largest piece of work you have owned from question to decision, who else touched it, and what you decided alone, then check that it reads at the level you are interviewing for
Prepare one thing you would want changed if you joined and phrase it as a question rather than a verdict, so it opens a conversation instead of closing one

Where candidates lose points

Counting authorizations instead of weighting them, and summing amounts across currencies

Declines skew toward high-value, cross-border and card-not-present transactions, so an unweighted approval rate can sit flat while approved value falls. Merchant retry logic also turns one declined purchase into several rows, inflating the denominator by an amount that varies by merchant and by decline reason. Amounts are held in the minor unit of the transaction currency and that unit is not always two decimals, since some currencies have none and some have three, so summing amount_minor across currencies produces a figure with no interpretation at all.

Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs

Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.

Treating a non-significant result as proof of no effect

Say whether the confidence interval excludes the effect sizes you would have cared about. If it does not, the honest reading is that the test was underpowered, so report the minimum detectable effect the design could have found and what sample size would resolve it.

Extrapolating a first-week lift inflated by novelty effects

Plot the treatment effect by days since first exposure instead of quoting one pooled average. A lift that decays toward zero across the test window is behaviour that will not persist, and annualising it produces a forecast that misses by an order of magnitude.

Questions & practice

Write integrity checks for the authorization and settlement lifecycle

Easy · data quality · minor units · fx reconciliation

You are given fct_payment_authorization as a pandas DataFrame with auth_id, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency and settlement_fx_rate. Write a function returning one row per integrity check with the check name, failing row count, failing share and up to five example auth_id values. Cover at least six checks, one of which reconciles captured_amount_minor against settlement_amount_minor through settlement_fx_rate. Partial capture, zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture are all legitimate and must not be flagged.

Approach

Separate contract violations from observations before writing any code: an approved row carrying a decline_reason_code is structurally impossible, while a capture two days after requested_at is merely slow and belongs in a different severity tier.
Express each check as a boolean mask over the whole frame and collect the masks in a dict, so the summary table is one comprehension over mask.sum() rather than a row loop.
For the reconciliation, leave minor units before comparing: expected = captured_amount_minor / 10exponent[transaction_currency] * settlement_fx_rate * 10exponent[settlement_currency]. Build the exponent table covering zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies instead of assuming two everywhere.
Guard the legitimate cases explicitly so each mask fires only on the genuine contradiction: captured_amount_minor below amount_minor is partial capture, amount_minor of zero on an approved row is account verification, a null captured_at on a declined row is correct.
Sort the output by failing share times a stated severity weight, because a check firing on 0.01 percent of rows can still be the one that breaks a ledger reconciliation.

Worked solution (25 min)

Assert auth_id is unique, then build a currency exponent lookup that includes the zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies present in the data.
Define masks for: approved with non-null decline_reason_code; declined with non-null captured_at; captured_amount_minor above amount_minor with parent_auth_id null; captured_at before requested_at; settled_at before captured_at; is_reversal true with parent_auth_id null; settlement_currency differing from transaction_currency while settlement_fx_rate is null.
Add the exponent-aware reconciliation mask with a tolerance of one minor unit plus a small relative term.
Assemble a frame of check_name, n_failing, pct_failing and up to five sample auth_id values, ordered by severity then share.
Read five flagged rows per check by hand and confirm each is genuinely contradictory before reporting any counts.

Expected result: A DataFrame of at least eight rows, one per check, each with n_failing, pct_failing and example auth_id values. The reconciliation check should fire on a whole currency at once rather than on scattered rows, because an exponent error is systematic while an FX error is not.

Verify it yourself

Every mask returns false on three hand-constructed legitimate rows: a partial capture, a zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture.
Each pct_failing uses the denominator that check actually applies to, with reversals and verifications excluded where they are out of scope.
The reconciliation residual is centred at zero with spread under one minor unit; residuals clustered at exactly 100x or 0.01x mean an exponent is wrong, not a rate.

Follow-up

Which of these would you run as a blocking pipeline assertion and which as a monitored metric, and why?
The FX check fails on 3 percent of rows, all in one settlement currency. How do you decide between a data bug and a rounding convention?
How would you detect that a currency's minor-unit exponent is wrong in your reference table, using only the transaction data?

Bootstrap a fraud loss rate that clusters within merchant

Medium · bootstrap · clustered resampling · heavy tails

You have a per-transaction frame with auth_id, merchant_id, settled_amount_reporting and net_loss_reporting, both already in one reporting currency. Most rows carry zero loss, a few carry large ones, and losses cluster within merchant. Using only numpy's random generator and no resampling helper from any library, write a bootstrap that returns a 95 percent interval for net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, resampling merchants with replacement and taking all rows belonging to each drawn merchant. Also produce the naive row-level interval and state which you would report.

Approach

State the estimator before writing it: total net loss divided by total settled volume, times 10,000. It is a ratio of sums, so each replicate recomputes both sums. Averaging per-transaction loss rates instead would weight a five-unit transaction like a five-thousand-unit one.
Pre-aggregate loss and volume to merchant level once. For a ratio of sums, drawing merchants and taking all their rows is arithmetically identical to drawing merchant-level (loss_sum, volume_sum) pairs, so a replicate becomes one integer draw plus two vectorised sums rather than a groupby inside the loop.
Draw B replicates of M merchant indices with replacement, where M is the observed merchant count, compute the ratio per replicate, and take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. Say explicitly that this is a percentile interval and that BCa would correct the skew-induced bias if the decision is close.
Repeat with independent row draws for the naive interval and compare widths on the same replicate count.
Report the clustered interval. Rows within a merchant share an acceptance profile, a category code and a fraud exposure, so they are not independent, and the row-level interval understates variance by roughly the design effect.

Follow-up

Your clustered interval is three times wider. How do you explain that to someone who wanted a tighter number?
One merchant accounts for 40 percent of losses. What does that do to the interval, and what would you do about it?
How does this change if the question is whether two months differ rather than what this month's rate is?

Measure calibration of a twelve-month default probability from scratch

Hard · calibration · brier score · binning

fct_loan_application gives application_id, model_pd_12m, model_version, decision, funded_at and loan_id. fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, months_on_book, days_past_due and charge_off_flag. Define the outcome as ever 90 or more days past due, or charged off, by months_on_book = 12. Without sklearn or scipy, build an equal-count binned reliability table, the expected calibration error, the Brier score and its reliability, resolution and uncertainty components, and report the residual the binned identity leaves behind. Restrict to cohorts that have actually reached 12 months on book.

Approach

Build the label first and name the population it covers out loud: only funded loans have outcomes, so this measures calibration on the approved population. The declined region is unmeasured, and no binning scheme repairs that.
Restrict to applications whose loans have reached months_on_book = 12. A cohort observed at 8 months has a mechanically lower default rate and will read as systematic over-prediction that is really just immaturity.
Bin by equal count, deciles of model_pd_12m through a rank-based cut, not equal width. The PD distribution is heavily right-skewed, so equal-width bins put most of the mass in the first bin and leave the risky bins with single-digit counts whose observed rates mean nothing.
Per bin compute n, mean predicted, observed rate, and the binomial standard error sqrt(o(1-o)/n) so a gap can be read against noise. ECE is the count-weighted mean absolute gap between mean predicted and observed.
Compute Brier directly as the mean squared error, then reliability = sum of n_k (pbar_k - obar_k)^2 over N, resolution = sum of n_k (obar_k - obar)^2 over N, uncertainty = obar(1 - obar). Report residual = Brier - (reliability - resolution + uncertainty). That identity is exact only for discrete forecasts, so with binned continuous scores the residual is the within-bin spread of the score; a large one means the bins are too wide to support the decomposition.
Split by model_version. A mixed-version population can look well calibrated in aggregate while each version is biased in opposite directions.

Follow-up

AUC is unchanged after a population shift but the reliability curve has moved. What happened, and what do you do about it?
How would you recalibrate without retraining, and what would you check afterwards?
The top decile shows observed default well above predicted. Is that a calibration problem or a policy problem?

Explain how you would use SQL window functions to calculate a rolling average of train sensor data.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

How do you ensure data integrity during a complex ETL process?

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.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Describe a scenario where you had to optimize a slow-running SQL query.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

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

Attribute chargebacks to transaction month without fanning out

Medium · fan-out · cohort attribution · maturity

Report the matured first-chargeback rate. Numerator: fct_card_dispute rows whose dispute_stage is first_chargeback, representment, pre_arbitration or arbitration, attributed to the requested_at month of the linked fct_payment_authorization row rather than to opened_at. Denominator: settled authorizations in that same transaction month, meaning settled_at is not null and is_reversal is false. One authorization can carry more than one dispute case. Report only transaction months whose last day is at least 120 days old, and mark the remainder incomplete rather than showing them as low.

Approach

Compute the denominator from fct_payment_authorization alone, grouped by the requested_at month, before any dispute table is mentioned, so the join cannot touch it.
Compute the numerator as a separate aggregate: join disputes to their authorization only to recover requested_at, then count dispute rows per transaction month with the stage filter.
Join the two aggregates on the month key, which keeps the grain at one row per month and makes double counting structurally impossible rather than something you have to remember.
Apply the maturity gate on the month's last day plus 120 days against the current date, because a transaction on the final day of the month is the least mature one in the cohort.
Emit an explicit status column of 'final' or 'incomplete' instead of filtering immature months away silently, so a reader cannot mistake absence for zero.

Worked solution (30 min)

CTE denom: SELECT date_trunc('month', requested_at) AS txn_month, COUNT(*) AS settled_txns FROM fct_payment_authorization WHERE settled_at IS NOT NULL AND NOT is_reversal GROUP BY 1.
CTE numer: join fct_card_dispute to fct_payment_authorization on auth_id, filter dispute_stage to the four stages at or beyond first_chargeback, group by the same txn_month expression, count dispute rows.
LEFT JOIN numer onto denom on txn_month so months with zero disputes appear as zero rather than disappearing.
Derive the rate with a numeric cast and a status column driven by (txn_month + interval '1 month - 1 day') + interval '120 days' <= current_date.

Expected result: One row per transaction month with settled_txns, chargeback_cases, a rate in basis points, and a status of 'final' or 'incomplete'. The final months form a roughly flat series; the incomplete months at the right edge are visibly and correctly labelled rather than sloping to zero.

Verify it yourself

settled_txns for a given month is identical whether or not the dispute CTE is joined, which is the direct test that no fan-out occurred.
COUNT(DISTINCT auth_id) in the numerator is at or below the dispute row count; if they are equal, no authorization in the data carries two cases and the fan-out risk is latent rather than absent.
Every month flagged 'final' has its last day at least 120 days before the current date.
Attributing by opened_at instead shifts the series later and flattens the right edge, which demonstrates why the attribution key matters.

Follow-up

Should the numerator count dispute cases or disputed authorizations? Which one reconciles to the loss line, and which one to the operations queue?
Some reason codes allow filing well beyond 120 days. How would you estimate the tail on a month you have decided to call final?
How would you present the incomplete months so that a weekly reader does not read the right-hand slope as an improvement?

If a key product metric drops unexpectedly after a feature release, what is your step-by-step process for metric drop diagnosis?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

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?

Design an experiment to test a new notification feature for transit delays.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
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?

What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you have encountered in production environments?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
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.

Follow-up

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

Design an authorization approval rate a team cannot game

Easy · approval rate · metric gaming · mix shift

A payments team is given authorization approval rate as its quarterly target, defined as approved authorizations over all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. Using auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, channel, issuer_country and requested_at, list three ways the team can raise that number without a single additional customer purchase succeeding. Then write the definition you would put on the dashboard instead, with its exclusions, and name the one guardrail you would always read beside it.

Approach

Enumerate the rows in the table that are not purchases: zero-amount account verifications, reversals (is_reversal = true), incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null) and merchant retries of a declined attempt. Each is a lever on the numerator or the denominator that no customer would ever notice.
Name the mix levers. Recurring and card-present traffic approve at higher rates than ecommerce and cross-border, so routing changes or a marketing push into an easy channel move the blended rate with no change in decisioning quality at all.
Work the retry arithmetic rather than asserting it. A declined purchase that is retried three times and succeeds on the fourth contributes one approval and four denominator rows, which is below a healthy blended rate, so suppressing retries raises the published number while some purchases that would have succeeded on a retry now simply fail.
Replace the definition: dollar-weighted, retry chains collapsed to a single attempt per (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) within a 15-minute window, excluding reversals, zero-amount verifications and incremental authorizations, with all amounts converted into one reporting currency before summing because amount_minor is in the minor unit of transaction_currency and that unit is not always two decimals. Cut by channel and issuer_country so mix shift shows up as mix shift.
Guardrail: net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months with at least 120 days of dispute maturity. The fastest way to approve more is to decline less risk, and that bill arrives two to four months later.

Worked solution (25 min)

Compute the naive rate for one week: approved rows over all rows.
Apply the exclusions one at a time (zero-amount, is_reversal, parent_auth_id not null), recording the rate after each, so you can say what each row type was worth to the headline number.
Add a retry-collapsing CTE keyed on (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) over a 15-minute window, keeping the last attempt in each chain, and recompute.
Recompute dollar-weighted in a single reporting currency, then split by channel and issuer_country.
Write the final one-line definition with its exclusions, plus the guardrail sentence.

Expected result: Four rates for the same week (naive count, count after exclusions, count after retry collapsing, dollar-weighted after both), with the largest single gap attributed to a named row type, and a published definition that states every exclusion and the currency it reports in.

Verify it yourself

Excluding zero-amount verifications should lower the rate, since those rows approve at a higher rate than purchases. If it raises the rate, confirm that the amount_minor = 0 filter is not also catching rows with a null amount.
Collapsing retry chains raises the rate and shrinks the denominator. The numerator falls only by the number of chains that contained more than one approval.
Declines skew toward higher-value, cross-border and card-not-present transactions, so expect the dollar-weighted rate to sit below the count-weighted one. If it sits above, check for amounts summed across currencies before believing it.

Follow-up

The blended rate is flat but ecommerce cross-border fell 200 basis points. How do you present that?
Why weight by amount rather than by count, and when does the weighted version mislead?
Your 15-minute retry window merges two genuine purchases of the same amount at the same merchant. How would you bound that error?

Approval rate fell but approved value did not

Easy · approval rate · retry chains · denominators

Over ten days the count-weighted 7-day approval rate on fct_payment_authorization fell from 91 to 86 percent, while captured value in the reporting currency is flat. Available columns: auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, mcc, channel, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, risk_score, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, issuer_country. In twenty minutes, decide whether approved value is actually at risk, and hand back a corrected rate together with its denominator and every exclusion written down.

Approach

Restate the denominator before querying anything. The current one counts every row, so reversals (is_reversal = true), incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null) and zero-amount verification attempts (amount_minor = 0) are all sitting in it.
Chart numerator and denominator separately by day. If approved counts are flat and total attempts rose, the rate moved because the denominator grew, which is a different investigation from a rule change and points at a different owner.
Group declines by decline_reason_code and merchant_id. Retry-driven inflation concentrates in a few soft decline codes at a few merchants; a genuine policy change spreads across merchants within one code family.
Collapse retry chains: partition by (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor), keep one attempt per 15-minute window taking the best outcome, and recompute both count-weighted and dollar-weighted rates on the collapsed set.
Convert amount_minor to one reporting currency using each currency's ISO 4217 exponent before any dollar weighting, then cut by channel and issuer_country to confirm nothing is hiding underneath a flat total.
Report both rates side by side with the exclusion list attached, and state which definition the alert should have been built on.

Follow-up

How would you pick the retry-collapsing window when merchants retry on different schedules?
Flat captured value could itself be hiding a mix shift. How do you rule that out?
What monitor would have caught denominator inflation on the day it started, rather than ten days later?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.

Day 1 — Design one test end to end on paper

Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.

Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.

Day 2 — Power arithmetic until it is automatic

Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.

Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.

Day 3 — Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem

Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.

Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.

Day 4 — Validity threats you can actually test for

Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.

Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.

Day 5 — When randomization is not available

Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.

Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.

Day 6 — The readout query

Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.

Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.

Day 7 — Present it to someone who will not read the appendix

Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.

Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.

Being wrong in public

A number you shipped turned out to be wrong, and someone had already acted on it. That is one of the most useful stories a data person can carry. What is being scored is how fast you noticed, who you told first, and what you changed in the process so the same class of error could not repeat quietly.

Describe a situation where you encountered a conflict within your team; how did you resolve it?

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

Share an example of a time you took initiative on a project without being explicitly asked.

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.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

Defend a vintage finding that contradicts the portfolio dashboard

Medium · vintage analysis · mix shift · stakeholder pushback

The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.

Approach

Reconcile before you contradict: show that aggregating your vintage table along the calendar diagonal reproduces the published blended series, so the disagreement is about age mix rather than about data quality.
Make the mechanism arithmetic rather than rhetorical: a loan cannot reach 90 days past due before it is 90 days old, so rapid origination growth shifts weight onto young months-on-book where the rate is structurally near zero.
Show every vintage rather than a selected pair, all indexed at months_on_book equal to 12, with cohort sizes printed beside each curve so nobody can claim the divergence rests on a thin cohort.
Handle restructuring explicitly, because restructured_flag resets days_past_due: count each loan on its worst pre-restructure state, or recent vintages will look better than they are.
Close on the decision rather than the chart: state what the divergence implies for the cutoff or the channel mix, and state in advance what evidence would make you withdraw the claim.

Follow-up

Two cohorts differ at month 12. How do you separate a seasoning effect from a genuine credit-quality effect?
Someone argues the recent vintages are simply a broker-channel mix shift. How do you test that, and what would confirm it?