Interview guides · Amherst Restaurant

Amherst Restaurant Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Amherst Restaurant data scientist prep on data pitfalls: selection bias, target leakage, and checking an outlier's provenance before you drop it.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Amherst Restaurant, you are at the forefront of blending culinary excellence with data-driven decision-making. This role is essential to our mission of delivering exceptional dining experiences while optimizing the complex operational mechanics of a modern restaurant group. You will help us understand our guests better, streamline our supply chain, and maximize our operational efficiency.

Seniority shifts the scope more than the words in the title do. Earlier-career loops mostly check that you execute a well-posed analysis correctly; senior loops check that you can decide which question is worth answering and defend what you chose not to do.

Focus areas

Turn a vague request into a measurable question
Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

Your impact in this position spans multiple facets of the business. By analyzing customer ordering patterns, seasonal foot traffic, and supply costs, you directly influence menu pricing strategies and targeted marketing campaigns. You will work closely with operations, marketing, and finance teams to translate raw data into actionable insights that improve both the bottom line and the guest experience.

What makes this role particularly exciting is the immediate, tangible nature of the work. Unlike purely digital products, the algorithms and insights you develop at Amherst Restaurant manifest in real-world environments. Whether you are forecasting inventory needs to reduce food waste or segmenting loyalty data to personalize customer outreach, your contributions have a visible, daily impact on our restaurants and our patrons.

The Amherst Restaurant interview process

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

Initial HR 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

Hiring Manager Conversations

This conversation decides whether you can be handed a problem nobody has finished defining and left alone with it for a few weeks. The manager is listening for how you behave when the brief is thin: what you clarify before starting, and what you settle on your own rather than escalating. Most candidates over-index on technical depth here and under-describe the decisions they actually owned. Say who wanted the work, what you chose not to do, and where you would have stopped and asked. A clean account of your own judgement carries this round further than a longer project list.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can name a decision that was yours alone, as opposed to one the team arrived at
How you respond to a request that arrives with no success metric attached to it
Whether the effort you estimate for a piece of work matches the work you just described doing
What you escalate, and how long you sit on a problem before you do

How to prepare

For each project you plan to raise, write one sentence saying what would not have happened if you had not been on it, and check that the sentence is about an outcome rather than an artefact
List the decisions in your last project that were genuinely yours, and for each one write down the option you rejected and why
Prepare the project that went badly: the point at which you knew, who you told, and what it cost before it was caught

Team-Fit Conversations

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.

Where candidates lose points

Comparing cohort retention curves of different maturities, or building the curve from users who are still present

A cohort four weeks old has no week-8 value, so an average taken across cohorts silently drops young cohorts from the later columns and keeps them in the earlier ones. The curve then bends upward at the tail, and the reading that 'retention is improving over time' is an artefact of which cohorts survived to be measured. The same error appears in the denominator when retention is computed over users active in the current period rather than over the full original cohort, which conditions on survival and guarantees a flattering number. The fix is a triangle: fix the cohort at signup, bound every window on both sides, and only compare cells where every cohort has had the full elapsed time, publishing the rest as blank rather than as a partial average.

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.

Answering a product-sense question with a list of features

Answer with a decision and the measurement that would settle it: the hypothesis, the primary metric, the guardrails, and the result that would make you not ship. A feature brainstorm cannot be wrong, which is exactly why it earns no points.

Reading experiment results before checking the arm split

Compare observed arm counts against the intended allocation ratio, not an assumed even split, and set the alarm far below the conventional 0.05: at 0.05 roughly one healthy experiment in twenty trips it, which is why sample-ratio checks usually run at p < 0.001 or stricter. The test's power scales with sample size, so it misses a real diversion on a small experiment and fires on an imbalance too small to move the estimate on a very large one. A flag means go find the assignment or logging fault before reading any outcome, not report a mismatch.

Questions & practice

Implement seven-day activation from its written definition

Medium · metric definition · cohorts · pandas · joins

Implement the seven-day activation rate. Inputs: dim_user with user_id, account_created_at_utc and is_internal; fct_event with user_id, occurred_at_utc and is_core_action. A user activates when core-action events carrying a non-NULL user_id fall on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). The denominator is every non-internal user whose account_created_at_utc lands in the cohort week, including users with no events at all. Return one row per cohort week with numerator, denominator and rate, publishing only weeks whose last signup is at least eight days old.

Approach

Build the denominator first, from dim_user alone, filtered on is_internal = False. Deriving it from the join is the standard way to lose every user who never fired an event, which is exactly the population the metric is about.
Join events to users on user_id with a left join from the user side, then apply the window as a half-open interval: occurred_at >= created AND occurred_at < created + 7 days. The right bound is exclusive, so an event at exactly created + 7 days does not count.
Count distinct UTC dates per user, not distinct events. Floor occurred_at_utc to date before the nunique, and do it in UTC rather than local time so the threshold does not move with the user's country.
Apply the >= 2 threshold, aggregate to cohort week, and compute the rate by re-summing numerator and denominator per week rather than averaging any per-user or per-day rate. Fix the week anchor explicitly: cohort_week is the Monday of the signup week in UTC, which is what Postgres DATE_TRUNC('week') returns and what any SQL version of this metric will produce. In pandas, subtract dt.weekday days from the floored timestamp. If you reach for periods instead, the anchor that matches is to_period('W') (equivalently 'W-SUN'), whose weeks end Sunday and therefore start Monday; to_period('W-MON') labels weeks that end on Monday, so it runs Tuesday through Monday and its start_time is a Tuesday. Mixing the two shifts every cohort label by one day and silently moves Mondays into the previous week.
Suppress immature weeks: drop any cohort week whose maximum account_created_at_utc is within 8 days of the data cut, and return them as absent rather than as a partial number.

Follow-up

The threshold is 2 distinct days. What changes in the reported history if someone moves it to 3, and how would you publish that change?
Invited seats and SSO-provisioned users have no pre-signup session. Should they be in this denominator at all, and what does including them do to the rate for sales-assisted accounts?
How would you produce the same metric at account grain, and which of the two would you put on the dashboard?

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?

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?

Pair flow starts to completions within a thirty-minute bound

Medium · event-streams · conditional-aggregation · flow-funnel

fct_event holds event_id, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, surface, app_version. Using only rows where event_name is 'flow_started', 'flow_completed' or 'error_shown', compute the daily core-flow completion rate by surface and app_version. Numerator: distinct flow_instance_id whose flow_completed occurs within 30 minutes of its flow_started with no error_shown for the same instance in between. Denominator: distinct flow_instance_id with a flow_started that day. Report rows with a NULL flow_instance_id as a separate coverage count, not inside either side.

Approach

Collapse the stream to one row per flow_instance_id using conditional aggregation: MIN(occurred_at_utc) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_started') AS started, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_completed') AS completed, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'error_shown') AS first_error. This makes the 'first' semantics explicit and avoids a self-join entirely.
Apply the predicates on that single row: completed IS NOT NULL AND completed <= started + interval '30 minutes' AND (first_error IS NULL OR first_error > completed). Note the last clause encodes 'in between' literally, so an error surfaced after a successful completion does not disqualify the attempt.
Bucket by started::date, surface and app_version. Splitting by app_version is not decoration: a completion-rate regression is nearly always confined to one client build, and a pooled daily rate hides it behind the installed base.
Count NULL flow_instance_id rows as a separate coverage figure. They cannot be attributed to an attempt at all, so they belong in neither numerator nor denominator, and their share tells you how much of the rate is unmeasurable.
For any roll-up to week or to all surfaces, re-sum the numerator and denominator rather than averaging the daily rates.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the per-instance collapse CTE and confirm COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id).
Add the three predicates one at a time, recording how many instances each removes.
Aggregate by day, surface and app_version with FILTER on the clean-completion flag.
Compute the NULL-instance coverage count as a separate select and report it alongside.
Pick the worst day-surface-version cell and pull ten raw instances to confirm the disqualification reason.

Expected result: One row per (day, surface, app_version) with started, completed_clean and a rate bounded by 0 and 1, plus a scalar coverage count of events carrying a NULL flow_instance_id. Instances completing after 30 minutes appear in the denominator only.

Verify it yourself

No rate exceeds 1.
COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id) in the collapsed CTE.
Total started across cells equals the count of distinct flow_instance_id values carrying a flow_started event in the window.
Instances with an error strictly between start and completion are excluded from the numerator but present in the denominator.

Follow-up

occurred_at_utc is client-supplied. What do you do with an instance whose completion timestamp precedes its start?
flow_instance_id is missing on 4 percent of starts for one app_version. What can and cannot you conclude about that build?
An instance starts at 23:55 and completes at 00:04. Which day owns it, and what does the alternative do to the daily series?

Rebuild sessions from raw events with a thirty-minute gap

Medium · window-functions · sessionisation · gaps-and-islands

From fct_event (event_id, visitor_id, occurred_at_utc) alone, rebuild sessions: a new session begins when the gap from that visitor's previous event exceeds 30 minutes, and every session is force-closed at UTC midnight so none spans two calendar dates. Return one row per session with visitor_id, session_start, session_end, event_count and session_date. Do not read fct_session; the point is to reproduce it. Assume duplicate occurred_at_utc values exist for the same visitor.

Approach

Get the previous timestamp per visitor with LAG(occurred_at_utc) OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY occurred_at_utc, event_id). The event_id tiebreaker is required, not stylistic: with duplicate timestamps an unstable ordering makes the boundary flags non-deterministic between runs.
Set a boundary flag when prev IS NULL, or occurred_at_utc - prev > interval '30 minutes', or occurred_at_utc::date <> prev::date. The third disjunct is the midnight rule, expressed as a date change rather than a clock comparison so it holds across any gap length.
Number the islands with SUM(flag::int) OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY occurred_at_utc, event_id ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING). Because event_id is unique the ordering is total, so no two rows are peers and RANGE UNBOUNDED PRECEDING would compute exactly the same numbers here. Write ROWS anyway: it is the half of the guard that survives someone later simplifying the ORDER BY back to occurred_at_utc alone, at which point the default RANGE frame gives every row sharing a timestamp one shared running total.
GROUP BY visitor_id and the island number, then MIN(occurred_at_utc) AS session_start, MAX(...) AS session_end, COUNT(*) AS event_count, session_start::date AS session_date.
Reconcile against fct_session on one sample day. The counts should agree except for server-emitted events carrying no client session, so a systematic difference beyond those is a bug in the gap rule or in the ordering.

Follow-up

Why 30 minutes? What does a 5-minute rule do to sessions-per-visitor and to any per-session conversion rate?
The same person uses phone then laptop. Two visitor_ids, two sessions. What breaks if you sessionise on user_id instead?
The midnight rule splits an overnight session. Which metrics does that bias, and in which direction?

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?

Define success for a rebuilt first-run onboarding checklist

Easy · activation · metric tree · cohorts

A rebuilt first-run checklist ships to all new signups next month. You have dim_user (user_id, account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal) and fct_event (user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, event_name, surface). Propose a primary metric with an explicit numerator, denominator, window and publication lag, plus two guardrails and one diagnostic you would refuse to treat as success. The team wants a number it can read weekly, and the constraint is that everything must be computable from those two tables alone. Deliver the metric tree from the north star down to the metric you chose.

Approach

Fix the grain and the cohort key first: the checklist is seen by users, so count on user_id with account_created_at_utc as the cohort key, and say out loud that the north star is account-grained so the tree crosses grains here deliberately rather than by accident.
Take seven-day activation as the primary — core action on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, +7 days) — because the two-distinct-days predicate cannot be satisfied by the single checklist-completion click the feature itself produces.
Demote checklist completion rate to a diagnostic and give the reason: it is an output of the feature, so it is near-perfectly correlated with having shipped the feature and cannot fall when the feature is bad.
Pick guardrails by the failure each one catches, not by what is easy to query: week-4 signup-cohort retention catches an activation gain that does not persist, and p50 minutes to first core action catches a checklist that adds steps to a path users already completed.
State the operational rules explicitly: is_internal = FALSE, an 8-day publication lag, and signup_surface values 'invite' and 'sso_provisioned' split out because those users arrive through an administrator rather than a self-serve signup and may not be shown the checklist at all.

Follow-up

Activation rises three points but week-4 retention is flat. What do you tell the team, and what would you need to distinguish a real gain from pulled-forward activity?
The checklist ships on web only. What changes in the denominator, and what breaks if you leave every surface in?
Signup mix shifted toward 'invite' the same week. How would you show whether the activation move was mix or behaviour?

Decide whether a one-day core-action drop is real

Easy · seasonality · day-of-week · late-arriving-data

A daily dashboard counts distinct fct_event.user_id with is_core_action = TRUE, filtered on occurred_at_utc, and is read at 09:00 UTC. This morning it shows yesterday down 22% against the day before. fct_event is partitioned on received_at_utc. You have fct_event, fct_session and dim_user with thirteen months of history. Deliver a one-paragraph verdict, escalate or do not escalate, with the evidence that settles it, before anyone proposes a product hypothesis.

Approach

Identify which two weekdays the comparison actually spans, then pull the same weekday-pair transition for the last 52 weeks and place the observed 22% inside that distribution. A day-over-day comparison in a product with a weekday pattern is a comparison of two different populations, so the reference class is the same transition historically, not the prior day.
Measure partition completeness rather than assuming it. For each of the last 30 days compute the share of that day's occurred_at_utc rows that had landed by 09:00 UTC the following morning, split by surface; mobile clients buffer events offline, so the freshest partition is systematically short and the shortfall is not uniform across surfaces.
Recompute the same series keyed on received_at_utc. If the drop survives on both keys it is not a lateness artefact; if it exists only on occurred_at_utc it is the partition filling in.
Check the two exclusion flags before segmenting anything: a change in is_bot_flagged coverage or a batch of is_internal accounts entering or leaving moves a distinct-user count with no user behaviour behind it.
Only if the movement survives all of the above, begin the segment decomposition. Say explicitly in the verdict which of these four checks the movement passed, so the next reader does not repeat them.

Follow-up

What publication lag would you set for this dashboard, and how would you derive the number rather than pick it?
If you switch the metric to received_at_utc, what does that break for anyone comparing to historical figures?
How would you detect the same problem automatically, so a human does not have to notice it each morning?

Suggested practice checklist

Four days spend equal time on query work, statistics, modelling and product judgement at deliberately shallow depth, which produces a scored map of where you actually stand. The last three days spend everything on the two areas the role weights most, and close by re-running day one to measure movement.

Day 1 — Breadth pass: query fluency

Solve six prompts spanning aggregation, joins, window functions and date arithmetic in 60 minutes total, stopping at 10 minutes each whether or not it works, and mark every prompt as solved, solved slowly, or stuck.
For each unsolved prompt write the single blocking sentence (I lost the grain, I did not know the frame clause, I could not express the date boundary) instead of reading the solution.
Translate one pandas transformation you know well into SQL and one SQL query into pandas, checking that both return the same row count and the same totals.

Deliverable: A scored six-row table, one line per prompt, saved for the day-seven re-run.

Day 2 — Breadth pass: statistics and inference

Answer ten short questions in writing with nothing open: what a p-value is conditional on, what a 95 percent interval covers across repeated samples, when a paired test is the right one, what the bootstrap estimates, why multiple comparisons inflate false positives, how controlling the family-wise error rate differs from controlling the false discovery rate, what power depends on, what a missed real effect costs a product, the three situations where the central limit theorem does not rescue you (small n, very heavy tails, dependent observations), and what a standard error is the standard deviation of.
Grade yourself against a reference and count only the answers that were exactly right, not the ones that were nearly right.
Rewrite the two weakest answers the following morning from memory in full sentences.

Deliverable: Ten graded answers with an honest count of exact hits.

Day 3 — Breadth pass: modelling

Take one tabular dataset end to end in 90 minutes: a leakage-safe split, a baseline that is not a model (majority class or historical mean), one regularized linear model, one gradient-boosted tree, and a single evaluation metric chosen before you look at any result.
Write why that metric fits the cost structure: precision at a fixed recall for alerting, calibration for anything feeding a price or a threshold, ranking metrics for retrieval, and note that area under the ROC curve is insensitive to class balance in a way that can flatter a rare-positive problem.
Name the leak you were most likely to introduce (an encoding fit on all rows before splitting, or a feature computed after the label's timestamp) and write the check that would have caught it.

Deliverable: A notebook whose first cell states the metric and the baseline, plus two lines on what beat what and by how much.

Day 4 — Breadth pass: product judgement

Answer three case prompts aloud at 15 minutes each, timing how long passes before you state a success metric.
For one case write the first segmentation you would run and the row counts you expect per segment, so that a tiny segment cannot quietly drive the conclusion.
Take a metric definition you did not write, from a public dashboard, a textbook, or documentation you already have open, and list every place two analysts implementing it would diverge: which rows the denominator admits, whether the unit is an account or a person, what the time window is anchored to, and what happens to data that arrives late. Then write the one question that would close the largest of those gaps.

Deliverable: Three recorded case answers plus an ambiguity list for a metric someone else defined, ending in the single question you would ask about it.

Day 5 — Depth, first area

Rank the four areas by how many bullet points in the role description each one covers, pick the top one, and spend the entire day inside it.
Work the six hardest problems you can find in that area and for each write the generalizable move you should have reached for first, rather than the answer.
Re-solve the two you failed the same evening with notes closed.

Deliverable: Six generalizable moves written as instructions to yourself, not as solutions.

Day 6 — Depth, second area, and the seam between them

Repeat the depth protocol on the second-ranked area with the same six-problem structure.
Construct one problem that requires both areas at once, for example a metric redefinition whose effect you must validate with a test whose readout you then have to query.
Solve your own combined problem end to end and note where the handoff between the two areas cost you time.

Deliverable: One combined problem, solved end to end, with the handoff failure written down.

Day 7 — Integration and re-measurement

Re-run the six prompts from day one under the same clock and compare both correctness and time.
Run a 60-minute mixed mock that moves between areas without warning, since switching cost is what breadth passes do not train.
Write the two areas you would still fail on, and the sentence you will use in the interview when you hit one of them.

Deliverable: A before-and-after score table plus a written plan for the two remaining gaps.

Explaining a method to someone who will not follow the maths

Half of this section is about translation. Be ready to describe how you explained a result to someone who did not want the method, only the implication, and what you did when the simplified version started being repeated in a way that overstated it. Correcting your own simplification is a strong beat.

Walk through an analysis you got wrong and what changed

Easy · postmortem · data quality · self-assessment

Describe an analysis of yours that turned out to be wrong after somebody had already acted on it. You have four minutes. The account must name the defect mechanically, the join, the filter, the window or the identity key, rather than describing it as a communication problem. It must also say who did what because of the wrong number, how the error surfaced, how long it stood, and what control you put in place so that class of error cannot reach a decision again. Do not pick an error nobody acted on.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can be specific about your own failure without minimising it or performing contrition. The discriminator is whether the defect has a mechanism the listener could reproduce in their own warehouse.
Choose the case by blast radius rather than by comfort. An error nobody acted on tests nothing, and picking one signals that you are managing the interview instead of answering it.
Structure the account in six beats: the number, the decision it drove, the defect, the detection, the correction, the control. Keep the defect to one reproducible sentence, for example an inner join to fct_subscription_period that dropped accounts with no subscription row and so computed retention over payers only.
State the direction of the bias, not only its existence. A filter or join that removes rows usually moves a metric predictably, and knowing which way shows you diagnosed the mechanism rather than patched the symptom.
Be exact about detection and elapsed time. 'A colleague noticed' and 'the row-count assertion failed before publication' are different answers about the same organisation, and the second one is the one your control is supposed to produce next time.
End on the control, its cost, whether it has fired since, and one thing it does not cover.

Follow-up

What did the control cost, and has it fired since? If it never has, how do you know it works?
How long did the wrong number stand before anyone questioned it, and what does that say about the review path it went through?
What is the equivalent mistake you are most likely to make in this role, given the tables you would be working in?

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?

Explain a wide interval to a non-technical executive

Medium · communication · uncertainty · pricing

A pricing change is under consideration. Your best estimate of its effect on trial-to-paid conversion is a 1.8pp drop, with a 95% interval from a 4.6pp drop to a 1.0pp rise, read from a geo holdout rather than a randomised test. An executive preparing a board slide asks you for 'the number'. You have ninety seconds and one slide, and the words confidence interval, p-value and significance are not usable with this audience. Deliver the slide headline, the single supporting line, and what you say aloud.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can carry uncertainty into a decision instead of either hiding it or hiding behind it. The generic answer promises to explain the interval in plain English; the strong one replaces the question 'what is the number' with 'across this range, where does the decision change'.
Find the threshold before you draft anything. Ask what the pricing case assumes, then compute the conversion drop at which the higher price stops adding revenue: price uplift on the conversions kept against the revenue lost from conversions forgone. That single figure is what makes the range legible.
Restate the estimate and both bounds in the unit the audience already reasons in. Convert percentage points into monthly first-paid conversions at current trial volume, then into mrr_cents_constant_fx, so the slide reads as money per month rather than as statistics.
Place the range against the break-even and say which part of it sits on each side. If most of the range clears the threshold, that is a recommendation to proceed with a monitoring plan; if the range straddles it, that is a recommendation to narrow the range first.
Name what would narrow it and what that costs in weeks, then give one recommendation with an explicit condition for revisiting it. Uncertainty stated without a next step is read as indecision and the midpoint gets used anyway.

Follow-up

The executive says to give the midpoint and they will manage the risk. What do you do?
How does the slide change if the interval were a 4.6pp to 0.2pp drop, with no positive outcomes in range?
Why is a geo holdout the credible read here rather than the attributed channel numbers you already have?