Interview guides · Amgen

Amgen Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

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

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Amgen, you are at the intersection of cutting-edge biotechnology and advanced computational science. Your mission is to leverage data to accelerate the discovery, development, and manufacturing of life-saving medicines. Whether optimizing biologics formulation, refining cell culture processes, or creating digital twins for manufacturing, your work directly impacts patients suffering from serious illnesses in areas like Oncology, Inflammation, and Rare Disease.

How much statistics you need depends on the flavour of the seat. Experiment-facing work wants you deep enough to notice that repeated looks at accumulating data inflate the false positive rate of a fixed-sample test; modelling-facing work wants estimation and honest uncertainty intervals.

Focus areas

Minimise protected health information in every extract
Risk-adjust outcomes before comparing providers or panels
Separate censoring from events in time-to-event models

Overview

This role is both deeply technical and highly collaborative. You will not be working in a silo; you will be embedded within cross-functional teams, acting as a bridge between scientific subject matter experts (SMEs) and engineering stakeholders. Success here requires the ability to translate complex, messy biological and process data into actionable, data-driven solutions that maintain the highest standards of scientific rigor and reproducibility.

The Amgen interview process

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

Recruiter Screen

A screening call is a matching exercise run by someone who will not evaluate your statistics. They are checking that the work described on your resume is work you personally did, and that its scope matches the level the role is written for. Logistics get settled in the same half hour so nobody spends an interviewer's afternoon on a mismatch. The answer that fails is the one narrated in the plural. If every sentence is 'we built' and 'the team decided', there is nothing specific to write down about you. Name the piece that was yours, the decision you made inside it, and what changed after.

What to demonstrate

Whether the ownership implied by your resume survives one round of follow-up about who actually did which part
Whether your described scope (data size, stakeholders, what shipped) matches the seniority the role is written at
Whether timeline, location and compensation expectations make the rest of the loop worth scheduling

How to prepare

Rewrite your top three resume bullets in the first person singular, each with the decision you made and what moved afterwards, then say them out loud once so the 'we' does not return under pressure
Attach one number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where impact was never measured, say that plainly rather than inventing a figure
Settle your compensation range before the call and give it as a range with a reason behind it, such as current total comp or a competing timeline, instead of deflecting the question twice

Technical Assessments

This round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.

What to demonstrate

Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it

How to prepare

Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither

Interviews with Team Members

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Interviews 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

Treating clinical measurements as missing at random

A lab result, a vital sign, or a screening exists because someone ordered it, and ordering tracks suspicion of disease, visit frequency, and site workflow. Imputing the mean or dropping incomplete rows biases the population estimate and can flip the sign of an association, because the untested are systematically healthier or systematically disengaged. The presence indicator is often more predictive than the value, which is a warning sign rather than a feature win: a model that learns test ordering will not transfer to a site with different protocols.

Pre-post evaluation on a high-cost or high-risk cohort

Cohorts selected on an extreme value of the outcome regress toward the mean on their own. Members identified as the top 1 percent of spend in one year spend far less the next, whether or not anyone intervenes, because the selecting year captured both chronic severity and one-off events. A pre-post design on such a cohort will report savings every time. A concurrent comparison group selected by the same rule in the same period, or a regression discontinuity at the selection threshold, is the minimum credible design.

Comparing periods without accounting for seasonality or day-of-week

Compare whole weeks against whole weeks and check whether the same swing appeared in prior cycles or prior years before attributing it to anything you changed. Weekday and weekend populations often differ enough that a Tuesday-to-Saturday comparison is meaningless.

Reading a dozen metrics with no multiplicity control

Nominate one primary metric before launch and treat the rest as guardrails or exploratory, with Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg applied when you intend to make claims from them. Twenty independent tests at 0.05 under the null produce at least one false positive about 64 percent of the time.

Questions & practice

How do you ensure the reproducibility and scalability of the machine learning models you deploy?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?

How would you approach a situation where you need to build a model with limited or noisy data from a biopharmaceutical process?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?

Bootstrap a confidence interval for a ratio-of-sums PMPM

Medium · bootstrap · ratio estimator · resampling unit

You have one row per member for a fully run-out incurred year: member_id, member_months, allowed_amount. Report allowed PMPM, defined as sum(allowed_amount) divided by sum(member_months), with a 95 percent confidence interval from a bootstrap you write yourself. No library resampler. Resample members with replacement, recompute the ratio on each of 2,000 replicates, take a percentile interval, and seed the generator so the result reproduces. In two sentences, state why resampling claim lines instead of members would be wrong.

Approach

Name the estimator precisely: PMPM is a ratio of sums, not the mean of per-member ratios. The two differ whenever exposure correlates with spend, and it does, because members who churn out mid-year are systematically different from members covered all twelve months.
Resample the unit of independence, which is the member, and recompute numerator and denominator together on the same draw. Recomputing only the numerator against a fixed denominator understates variance and is a common slip.
Pull member_months and allowed_amount into numpy arrays once, then draw indices with rng.integers(0, n, size=n) per replicate. Index draws over arrays run one to two orders of magnitude faster than DataFrame.sample, which is the difference between 2,000 replicates and 200.
Take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the replicate ratios. Expect an interval that is asymmetric around the point estimate, because healthcare spend is right skewed. That asymmetry is the method working, not a bug to centre away.
Answer the line-resampling question concretely: the many lines of one high-cost member are not independent draws, so line resampling shrinks the interval toward zero width, and member_months has no line-level analogue, so the denominator becomes undefined.

Worked solution (25 min)

Compute the point estimate as allowed.sum() / months.sum() on the full sample.
Extract both columns to float numpy arrays and create rng = np.random.default_rng(seed).
Loop 2,000 times: idx = rng.integers(0, n, n); ratio = allowed[idx].sum() / months[idx].sum(); store it.
Take np.percentile(replicates, [2.5, 97.5]) and report the point estimate with that interval and the seed.

Expected result: A point estimate plus a 95 percent percentile interval that is wider on the upper side than the lower. With tens of thousands of members and a typical commercial cost distribution the relative half-width lands on the order of a few percent; an interval a small fraction of a percent wide is the signature of having resampled rows rather than members.

Verify it yourself

Re-running with the same seed reproduces both bounds exactly.
Raising replicates from 2,000 to 8,000 moves each bound by less than its third significant figure.
The mean of the replicate ratios sits close to the point estimate; a large gap indicates a bug in the resampler rather than skew.
Replicate denominators cluster tightly around the observed total member-months, which confirms the draw size is n rather than a fixed constant.

Follow-up

Half a percent of members have a transplant or a long NICU stay. Does a percentile interval still have nominal coverage, and what would you do about the tail?
The question changes to comparing PMPM across provider panels. What becomes the resampling unit and why?
How would you use the same replicates to test whether this year's PMPM differs from last year's, given the same members appear in both?

Compute allowed PMPM by incurred month without span fan-out

Hard · fan-out · many-to-many · runout

Report allowed PMPM by incurred month and product_type for 2025 from medical_claim_line (member_id, claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code, service_start_date, allowed_amount, claim_status), pharmacy_claim (member_id, fill_date, allowed_amount, reversal_flag, reversed_fill_id), member_enrollment (span_id, member_id, product_type, effective_date, termination_date) and member_risk_score (member_id, score_year, prospective_risk_score), which holds at most one row per member per score year. The numerator is allowed_amount on surviving claim versions plus unreversed fills, attributed to the product_type in force on the service or fill date. The denominator is member-months. Also return a risk-adjusted PMPM for each cell: allowed PMPM divided by the member-month-weighted mean prospective_risk_score for score_year 2025 over the members making up that cell's denominator. A colleague joined claim lines to member_enrollment on member_id alone and the annual total came back 1.4 times the finance figure. Diagnose that, then produce the correct monthly series.

Approach

Name the defect precisely. member_enrollment is one row per span, so joining on member_id alone is one-to-many and duplicates every claim line once per span that member ever held. The inflation factor is the spend-weighted mean span count per member, which is why 1.4 is plausible and why it is not a constant you can divide back out.
Make the join functional: member_id AND service date between effective_date and COALESCE(termination_date, DATE '9999-12-31'). That yields at most one span per line unless spans genuinely overlap, in which case pick a documented precedence rule, most recently effective wins being the usual one, and prove uniqueness with a duplicate check rather than asserting it.
Aggregate numerator and denominator separately and join them on (month, product_type). Computing both sides across one join is the second route to inflation, because the member-month denominator fans out over claim lines just as easily as the dollars fan out over spans.
Clean each numerator source on its own terms: surviving claim versions with voids removed and claim_status 'paid' on the medical side, reversal rows and their originals removed on the pharmacy side.
Apply completion before anyone reads a trend. State the paid-through date and either withhold the three most recent incurred months or apply completion factors, since the lag differs by service type and the incomplete tail reads as a cost improvement and a utilisation drop at once.
Risk-adjust last, and weight the score the way the denominator is weighted. The divisor for a cell is SUM(member_months * prospective_risk_score) / SUM(member_months) over that cell's members, not a plain AVG over distinct members: a member covered two months must not count the same as one covered twelve. member_risk_score is member-level, so join it after the member-month grain is fixed, or it becomes a second fan-out.
State the rule for members with no 2025 member_risk_score row: keep them in member_months, leave them out of the weighted mean, and publish the scored share of member-months beside the adjusted series. A thin score table moves the adjusted number while the raw one sits still, and without that share nobody can tell the two apart.

Follow-up

A member holds two overlapping spans under different product_types on the service date. Which one gets the dollar, and how do you keep the member-month denominator consistent with that choice?
Write the check that proves the span join is one-to-one rather than assuming it.
Finance reports on paid_date and you reported on service_start_date. Reconcile one month between the two bases.

Measure ninety-day primary care contact for an enrollment cohort

Easy · cohort analysis · conversion rate · date windows

member_enrollment gives span_id, member_id, product_type, effective_date and termination_date, which is NULL while a span is active. medical_claim_line gives member_id, service_start_date, procedure_code and claim_status. The cohort is members whose earliest 2025 span has effective_date in January 2025 and who stay covered at least 90 days from it. Return, by product_type, cohort size and the share with at least one paid claim line whose procedure_code is in a supplied list of evaluation-and-management office visit codes and whose service_start_date falls in the half-open window from effective_date to effective_date plus 90 days.

Approach

Build the cohort as one row per member before touching claims. Take the earliest 2025 span per member, require its effective_date in January, and require coverage to effective_date + 90 days, which means termination_date IS NULL OR termination_date >= effective_date + 89.
Use EXISTS for the numerator rather than a join. A member with four office visits must count once; joining and counting rows inflates the numerator and can push the rate above 1.
Keep the window half-open and anchored per member. Every member has a different effective_date, so a single fixed calendar window is a different metric and will not match the cohort definition.
Aggregate numerator and denominator in one pass with a conditional sum grouped by product_type, and carry the raw counts alongside the rate so the reader can see the denominator.
State the reportability rule on the output: the January cohort is not final until 90 days plus professional-claims runout have passed, so label the paid-through date.

Worked solution (15 min)

CTE first_span: per member, the 2025 span with the minimum effective_date, filtered to January effective dates.
Add the continuous-coverage requirement to that CTE using COALESCE(termination_date, DATE '9999-12-31').
Add an EXISTS subquery on medical_claim_line correlated on member_id, restricted to the code list, claim_status = 'paid', and service_start_date >= effective_date AND < effective_date + 90.
Group by product_type: COUNT(*) as cohort_size, SUM(CASE WHEN contacted THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) as contacted, and their quotient.
Print the paid-through date used, and re-run at a 30-day window to confirm the rate falls.

Expected result: One row per product_type with cohort_size, contacted_members and contact_rate = contacted_members / cohort_size, where contacted_members never exceeds cohort_size.

Verify it yourself

contact_rate lies in [0, 1] for every product_type. Above 1 proves the numerator was counted on rows rather than members.
SUM(cohort_size) across product_types equals COUNT(DISTINCT member_id) in the cohort CTE. A larger value means a member with two January spans was counted twice.
A 0-day window returns a rate at or near zero, and a 365-day window returns a rate no lower than the 90-day one.

Follow-up

A member changes plan on day 40, closing one span and opening another. Is she still in the cohort, and which product_type does she report under?
What moves if denied lines are allowed into the numerator, and which definition is right for an access metric?
How would you show this as a cumulative curve by day since effective_date instead of one 90-day point?

Explain a time you used Python or R to perform statistical modeling on a complex dataset.

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.

Follow-up

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

Decompose risk-adjusted cost per member into owned leaf metrics

Hard · metric tree · price volume mix · coding intensity · ownership

Build a metric tree, at most four levels deep, from risk-adjusted allowed PMPM down to leaves an owner can move. Data: medical_claim_line (allowed_amount, units, procedure_code, place_of_service_code, service_start_date, claim_version, frequency_code), pharmacy_claim (allowed_amount, days_supply, is_generic, formulary_tier, reversal_flag), member_enrollment (coverage spans, prospective_risk_score). Give the arithmetic identity each split rests on, the leading indicator at each leaf, and identify the one node where the arithmetic is exact but the attribution is not.

Approach

State the base identity before drawing anything. Allowed PMPM equals total allowed over member-months, and it decomposes exactly by service category c as the sum over c of (units_c / member-months) times (allowed_c / units_c). Utilization per member-month and allowed per unit, summed across categories, so category mix is inside the sum rather than a separate hand-wave.
Give the change decomposition too, because the tree will be read on deltas: the change in PMPM equals the sum over categories of (change in utilization times base price) plus (base utilization times change in price) plus (change in utilization times change in price). The third term is the interaction, it is not noise, and an analysis that drops it will not reconcile.
Build the medical branch to leaves with owners: inpatient admits per 1,000 member-months and allowed per admit (with DRG case mix as the sub-split), ambulatory visits per 1,000 and allowed per visit split by place_of_service_code, and emergency visits per 1,000 and allowed per visit. Prepare the data with version dedup to the surviving claim_version before a single dollar is summed, since frequency_code 7 replaces and 8 voids.
Build the pharmacy branch on 30-day equivalents: scripts_30 equals the sum of days_supply over 30 on unreversed fills, so pharmacy PMPM equals (scripts_30 per member-month) times (allowed per 30-day script). Split the price term exactly as g times the generic price plus (1 minus g) times the brand price, where g is the generic dispensing rate, which makes generic substitution and unit price separable leaves with different owners.
Attach one leading indicator per leaf: prior-authorization approvals and elective surgical bookings ahead of inpatient admits, contract effective dates ahead of allowed per unit, site-of-service steering ahead of the ambulatory place_of_service mix, new-to-brand starts and formulary tier placement ahead of pharmacy price.
Name the node where arithmetic is exact but attribution is not: the risk-adjustment denominator. Dividing by the population mean prospective_risk_score is exact arithmetic, but the score is built from coded diagnoses, so more complete coding raises the denominator and lowers risk-adjusted PMPM with no change in care delivered. Carry raw PMPM, the mean risk score trend and a coding-intensity measure such as diagnoses per member-year beside it, permanently.

Worked solution (45 min)

Write the base identity and the three-term change decomposition on paper first, and confirm the terms sum to the total change on a two-category toy example before touching real data.
Specify the preparation rules that precede any aggregation: dedup medical_claim_line to the surviving version per claim_id using claim_version and frequency_code, drop both rows of every reversed pharmacy pair, and build member-months from coverage spans with partial months counted fractionally.
Draw the medical branch and the pharmacy branch to leaf level, writing the identity beneath each split rather than only the metric name.
Write the generic-dispensing split as the exact price identity and confirm it reproduces the observed allowed per 30-day script.
Attach one leading indicator and one named owning function to each leaf.
Write the caveat on the risk-adjustment node, including the two companion series that must be published with it.

Expected result: A four-level tree rooted at risk-adjusted allowed PMPM, splitting by service category into utilization per member-month and allowed per unit, with an inpatient sub-split on DRG case mix, an ambulatory sub-split on place_of_service_code, and a pharmacy branch on 30-day equivalents whose price term is split exactly by generic dispensing rate; each leaf carries a named owner and a leading indicator; and the risk-adjustment denominator is flagged as exact arithmetic with unreliable attribution, published alongside raw PMPM, the mean risk score trend and a coding-intensity series.

Verify it yourself

Reconcile the leaves back to the root: the summed category contributions must equal total allowed PMPM to within rounding, and the three change terms must sum to the observed period change.
Recompute total allowed with and without version dedup. Any gap is the double-counted adjusted claims the tree would otherwise attribute to real utilization.
Verify the pharmacy price identity numerically: generic dispensing rate times generic price plus its complement times brand price should reproduce the observed blended allowed per 30-day script.
Hold care constant and simulate a 5 percent rise in mean prospective_risk_score. Risk-adjusted PMPM should fall by roughly the same proportion, which is the attribution problem made visible.

Follow-up

Utilization is flat and allowed per unit is flat, yet PMPM rose 4 percent. Name every place the increase can be hiding.
Your member-month denominator came from coverage spans that overlap across products for some members. What does that do to PMPM, and how do you decide whether to deduplicate?
Which leaf would you refuse to put on a team's scorecard, and why?

Readmission rate rose while every facility improved

Medium · simpsons paradox · mix shift · risk adjustment

Quarter over quarter the 30-day unplanned readmission rate for an attributed population rose from 14.2 to 15.1 percent, yet all eleven facilities in encounter show a flat or falling rate over the same period. You have encounter (facility_id, admit_ts, discharge_ts, encounter_type, admission_type, discharge_disposition, drg_code, is_planned_admission, index_encounter_id) and twelve months of prior medical_claim_line for comorbidities. Explain the direction reversal numerically, and state what the population-level number should be reported as instead.

Approach

Confirm the reversal is arithmetic, not a definition difference, by recomputing both the facility rates and the pooled rate from the same query with the same index-stay exclusions.
Decompose the pooled change exactly with a Kitagawa split. With facility weights w and within-facility rates r, the change equals the sum over facilities of (w_1 - w_0) times (r_0 + r_1)/2, the mix term, plus the sum of (w_0 + w_1)/2 times (r_1 - r_0), the within term. If the mix term exceeds the total change and the within term is negative, the reversal is volume shifting toward facilities with higher baseline rates.
Ask why the weights moved. Check index-stay volume by facility, and check whether an exclusion changed behaviour: acute-to-acute transfers (discharge_disposition 'transfer_acute') must not open an index stay, and if one facility began transferring more, its denominator shrinks toward its sickest retained patients.
Check case mix inside the facilities too, using drg_code and comorbidities drawn from the 12 months of claims before admit_ts, excluding complications of the index stay itself. A facility rate can be flat while its case mix worsens.
Replace the raw pooled rate with an observed over expected ratio, where expected is the sum of predicted probabilities from a model fitted on age, sex and prior comorbidities. Raw rates are not comparable across a population whose facility and case mix is moving.

Follow-up

Your O/E ratio is 1.04 with a 95 percent interval of 0.96 to 1.13. What does that let you say to a facility, and what does it not?
If one facility contributes 40 percent of index stays, how does that change how you present the decomposition?
How would you handle a member with two index stays in the quarter, where the second is also a readmission from the first?

Suggested practice checklist

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

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

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

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

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

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

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area

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

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

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

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

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

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.

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

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.

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

Getting an analysis acted on

Work that nobody used is a common and unflattering pattern in data careers, and interviewers probe for it. Have a story about an analysis that changed a decision, and be specific about how you got it in front of the person who could act. Also have one about work that went nowhere, with your reading of why.

What is your experience with cloud platforms like AWS and data engineering tools like Databricks?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.

Follow-up

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

Describe a project where you had to explain a complex technical insight 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.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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

Give an example of how you have championed best practices (like version control or CI/CD) within your team.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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