Interview guides · Amii (Canada)

Amii (Canada) Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Amii (Canada) Machine Learning Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, practice questions with worked solutions and a 7-day prep plan.

The 60-second brief

A Machine Learning Engineer at Amii (Canada) serves as a vital bridge between cutting-edge AI research and real-world industrial application. Whether working as a Machine Learning Resident on a 12-month client-embedded term or as a Machine Learning Scientist, you are responsible for translating complex business problems into viable machine learning solutions. This role is highly strategic, as you often act as the primary technical interface between Amii (Canada) and external partners, requiring you to balance scientific rigor with practical product delivery.

The loop does not sample the job evenly, and arguing about that in the room costs you. Daily work is mostly incremental change inside code someone else wrote, while the loop samples narrow slices of it; prepare for the slices and save the realism argument for your questions at the end.

Focus areas

Make every write idempotent under retry
Bound every outbound call with a timeout
Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors

Overview

The work is intellectually demanding and offers exposure to a wide variety of problem spaces, including predictive maintenance, computer vision, and agentic AI. You will not only be expected to design and implement models but also to navigate the constraints of real-world data and client requirements. Success in this role requires a high degree of adaptability, as the specific technical demands—ranging from Reinforcement Learning (RL) to Deep Learning architectures—will shift depending on the client project you are assigned.

The Amii (Canada) interview process

Amii (Canada) candidates report 6 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

Before anything technical happens, someone has to decide which rung of the ladder your loop is calibrated to, and that decision sets the bar for every round after it. It comes from how you describe scope, not from your title, because titles do not convert cleanly between companies. The weak version of the answer is team size and years. The strong version names the largest change you shipped where nobody reviewed the design, what would have broken if you had been wrong, and what you were paged for. Get the level said out loud on this call, because the range and the loop both follow from it.

What to demonstrate

Whether the scope in your own account maps onto a level the team actually has an opening at, so a mismatch ends the process cheaply rather than after four interviewers have spent a day
Whether your title needs re-mapping: the same word describes very different amounts of independent decision-making at a twenty-person company and a ten-thousand-person one
Whether your compensation expectation can be filled at that level in the structure the role pays in, which is why the number gets asked for before any engineer is scheduled

How to prepare

Write down two changes from the last two years: the largest one you designed with nobody reviewing the design, and the largest one where someone more senior did. Lead with the first when scope comes up, and be ready to say which parts of the second were yours
Ask which level the loop is calibrated to and what changes at the level above it, then plan your weeks from that answer rather than from the posting
Settle a total-compensation range beforehand with the split named, base against bonus against equity and its vesting period, so a question about numbers gets a number instead of the word market

Technical Assessment

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Cultural Evaluation

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Take-Home Project

A test suite is read as a statement about what you believe can break, which is why the selection matters far more than the count. Assertions that repeat the happy path with different numbers tell a reviewer nothing. Cases at the boundaries tell them where you looked: empty input, one element, duplicates, a malformed row, a value at the edge of the accepted range. The sharpest question to ask of a test you have just written is whether it would fail if the logic were wrong. If deliberately breaking the function leaves the suite green, that test is documentation rather than a check.

What to demonstrate

Which cases you chose, and whether the suite reaches empty, single, duplicate and malformed inputs instead of the prompt's example with the numbers changed
Whether the suite is deterministic and runs offline, so it produces the same result on a reviewer's machine as on yours
Whether assertions are written against behaviour rather than internals, so a reasonable refactor does not force the tests to be rewritten
Whether a failure is readable on its own, naming the input and the expected value rather than reporting a bare assertion

How to prepare

Mutate your own code by hand before submitting: change a < to <=, drop the last iteration of a loop, return the input unchanged. Anything that stays green is a missing test, and this takes minutes
Remove nondeterminism before writing assertions. Pass the clock in rather than calling now() inside the logic, seed any random generator explicitly, and do not assert on the iteration order of a Go map or a Python set, since Go randomises that order deliberately and Python salts string hashing per process unless PYTHONHASHSEED is pinned
Time a full run of the suite and trace anything slow to its cause, usually a sleep or a real network call, then replace it with a fake so the reviewer is not waiting

Technical Discussions

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Behavioral Stages

What you say here is written down by each interviewer and compared afterwards, so the unit of evaluation is a claim someone else could check, not a well-told narrative. Two things make a story checkable: detail only a participant would hold, and a clean line around which part was yours. Vague ownership is the usual failure and it is usually accidental, because engineers say we about the team's work and we about their own, so the thing they personally built disappears into the plural. Name the part you wrote, and name who did the rest.

What to demonstrate

Whether your details are ones a participant would hold and an observer would not: the constraint that ruled out the obvious approach, the first attempt that failed, the person who objected and on what grounds
Whether ownership survives a direct question, since a follow-up to we decided is routinely who decided, and an answer that stays plural at that point is read as the work belonging to someone else
Whether the numbers you quote are ones you would say identically to a former colleague with the dashboard open

How to prepare

Go through each story replacing every we with either I or a named role (the on-call engineer, the reviewer, the other team) and check the story still holds together. Wherever it stops making sense you have found a part you cannot actually speak to
Open the artefacts for two of your stories, the pull request, the design doc, the incident notes, and read them for dates and figures you have been rounding in the retelling. Correct your version to match
For each story write the single sentence you would least want repeated to a former teammate, then either make it accurate or take it out

Where candidates lose points

Paginating with LIMIT/OFFSET over a set that changes while the client is reading it

OFFSET n makes the database produce and discard n rows before returning anything, so the cost of a page grows with its depth rather than with its size and page 500 costs five hundred pages of work. The correctness problem is worse than the cost: if a row is inserted or reordered between two page fetches, rows shift across the offset boundary and are either skipped entirely or returned twice, and neither outcome leaves any trace in the response for the client to detect. Keyset pagination - WHERE (sort_key, id) < ($last_sort_key, $last_id) ORDER BY sort_key DESC, id DESC LIMIT n, backed by an index in exactly that order - reads only the rows it returns and is stable against concurrent inserts. It requires the tie-break column: a timestamp is not unique, and duplicate sort keys straddling a page boundary reintroduce the skip it was adopted to remove.

Choosing an index from the columns a query mentions rather than from how it filters and orders

A composite B-tree index on (a, b, c) can be seeked only as a left prefix: equality on a, then equality on b, then a range or an ordering on c. A query that filters on b alone cannot seek into it at all and at best gets a full scan of the index; a query that filters a and ranges on b gets no benefit from c, because the index is only sorted by c within a fixed (a, b) pair. The practical consequence is that one index per column is close to useless for multi-predicate queries while a single correctly ordered composite index turns a scan into a lookup. The ordering half is what gets missed: if the index cannot satisfy the ORDER BY, the database must read every matching row and sort before the limit can apply, so a LIMIT 20 over a million matching rows still reads a million rows.

Abandoning working code to chase the optimal solution

Get the straightforward version correct, state its complexity, and only then optimise, keeping the working version until the faster one passes the same cases. A correct quadratic solution with a stated path to linear beats a half-written optimal one that never ran.

Assuming fixed-width integer arithmetic cannot overflow

In languages with fixed-width integers, including C, C++, Java, Go and Rust, computing a midpoint as (lo + hi) / 2 overflows once the sum passes the type's maximum, so write lo + (hi - lo) / 2 instead. Say which language you are in: arbitrary-precision integers, as in Python or Ruby, remove this specific hazard and none of the others.

Questions & practice

Explain backpropagation in a neural network.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.

Follow-up

What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Explain vision transformers and their core mechanisms.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

How do you approach Reinforcement Learning (RL) and sequential decision-making?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

Describe how transformer decoders differ from encoders.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.

Follow-up

Where could label leakage enter this setup?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

Diff a projection against the primary without per-row point reads

Hard · reconciliation · range hashing · throttling

The listing projection has drifted and some rows show a stale version. The primary holds 40,000,000 resource rows across 12,000 tenants while serving 1,200 writes and 14,000 reads per second. The obvious repair, reading each resource row and comparing its version against the projection, is correct and would eventually finish. Explain precisely why it is unacceptable here, then give a diff that finds the differing rows, state its complexity, and make it safe to run against a live primary. Replication lag is usually under 100 ms and is not bounded.

Approach

Quantify the naive cost rather than calling it slow: 40,000,000 point reads at even 0.5 ms each is over five hours serialised, and the only lever is concurrency, which is exactly what you cannot spend. The primary's pool is sized for the write path, and 40,000,000 random reads evict the buffer cache that sustains the 85 percent cache hit rate, so the audit degrades the system it is auditing.
Replace random access with one ordered pass per side. Both sides can be read in (tenant_id, resource_id) order, which is a sequential scan on each and a merge join in O(n) time and O(1) memory. For a dense diff that is the whole answer, and it reads the primary once instead of 40,000,000 times.
For the expected sparse case, compare range hashes instead of rows: partition the key space, compute per range an order-independent aggregate over hash(resource_id, version), compare aggregates, and descend only into ranges that differ. With d differing rows and branching factor B, at most d ranges mismatch per level, so the drill-down examines O(d log_B(n/d)) ranges and reads full rows only in mismatching leaves.
Aggregate with a sum modulo 2^64 or a multiset hash, never XOR. XOR is order-independent but self-cancelling, so two rows wrong in the same way, or a row duplicated on one side, leave the range aggregate matching and the range is declared clean.
Pin the comparison to a point in time or it reports lag as drift: consider only rows whose updated_at is older than now minus a lag margin, and re-check each candidate mismatch individually before repairing. At 1,200 writes per second a diff without this reports thousands of false positives, and an unattended repairer would then overwrite live rows with stale values.
Make the run resumable and throttled: batch by range key, persist the last completed range, and watch a signal such as replica lag or primary CPU, pausing rather than pressing on. A reconciliation that cannot be stopped and resumed gets killed halfway and restarted from zero, which is how a repair becomes an incident.

Worked solution (35 min)

Compute the naive cost explicitly at 40,000,000 reads and 0.5 ms each, then at 100 concurrent, and state what those connections do to a pool already carrying 1,200 writes per second.
Write the merge-join version over (tenant_id, resource_id) and state its memory.
Define the range aggregate: the range key, the per-row hash input, and the combining function, with one sentence excluding XOR.
Work an example with 40,000,000 rows, branching factor 256 and 5 differing rows, and count the ranges examined.
Add the watermark filter and the resume point, and name the throttle signal the loop watches.

Expected result: A rejection of per-row point reads backed by the time cost and the cache-eviction argument, a single ordered merge join as the dense-case answer at O(n) time and O(1) memory, a range-hash drill-down examining O(d log_B(n/d)) ranges using a sum or multiset hash rather than XOR, a watermark excluding recently written rows, and a resumable throttled run loop.

Verify it yourself

Injecting one known stale row makes exactly one leaf range mismatch and the drill-down reaches it.
Duplicating a row on one side is detected, which is precisely the case XOR would miss.
Running the diff twice against an idle system reports zero mismatches both times.

Follow-up

The diff reports 900 stale rows. How do you decide between patching those rows and rebuilding the projection from resource_revision?
Same job, but the projection lives in a search index that cannot be scanned in key order. What changes?
How would you run this continuously at low cost instead of only as incident response?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (20 min)

Create the PostgreSQL partial unique index, insert a live row, soft delete it, and insert the same address again.
Repeat the delete-and-reinsert cycle three times and confirm three deleted rows coexist with exactly one live row.
Write the MySQL form with the discriminator, then deliberately reverse the polarity so live rows carry NULL, and show two live duplicates commit.
Attempt a second live insert on both engines and map the resulting 23505 / ER_DUP_ENTRY to the 409 the handler should return.

Expected result: PostgreSQL rejects only the second live row and admits unlimited deleted ones. MySQL behaves identically with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker) where live = 0; with the polarity reversed, two live rows commit and nothing afterwards can tell them apart.

Verify it yourself

Group live rows by (tenant_id, lower(email)) after a randomised insert/delete run — no group exceeds one.
Inserting 'User@x.test' after 'user@x.test' is rejected; if it is accepted, the case handling is in application code rather than in the index.
EXPLAIN a login lookup and confirm the partial index is chosen — it is only usable by queries that carry the deleted_at IS NULL predicate, so a query without it falls back to a scan.

Follow-up

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

Write the update path that detects a concurrent edit

Medium · optimistic concurrency · transactional outbox · audit history

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

A client sends the version it read ten minutes ago and the resource has moved three versions. What is in your 409 so it can resolve the conflict without a full re-fetch?
Two editors, two disjoint fields, no overlap. Does your answer still refuse the second write, and should it?
Every write now touches a second hot table. How do you keep the outbox insert and its partial index from becoming the write bottleneck at 1.2k writes/second?

Evolve the resource contract without breaking integrations you cannot upgrade

Hard · versioning · backward compatibility · deprecation

GET /v1/resources/{id} returns status from a four-value enum ('draft','active','archived','deleted'), a numeric version, and the body inline. Consumers are a browser app you deploy and roughly 300 server-side integrations, some untouched for two years, that switch exhaustively on status and parse ids as JSON numbers. You must add a 'pending_review' status, move bodies over 256 KB to a body_ref pointer, and expose per-field change history from resource_revision. Specify the compatibility policy, the wire changes, how both generations are served, and the evidence that lets you remove the old shape.

Approach

Write the policy first and date it: fields are added, never retyped or repurposed; consumers ignore unknown fields; an unknown enum value maps to a documented fallback; nothing is removed until telemetry shows no caller reads it. Then say the uncomfortable part out loud - v1 shipped without the unknown-value rule, so 300 running integrations have no fallback, and no server change can install one into code that is already deployed.
That single fact forces per-request negotiation rather than a server-side default. Keep one internal model and select a serialiser from an explicit version in the request, and default a caller that sends nothing to the oldest supported version. Defaulting to the newest is the change that breaks every integration that never asked for anything, on the day you ship.
Downgrade 'pending_review' for old callers to the nearest state they already handle, 'draft', and state the loss explicitly: those integrations cannot see review state and will treat the resource as editable. If that is unacceptable for one integration, the remedy is moving it to the new version, not a cleverer projection - there is no mapping that invents a state the client has no code for.
Make the body change additive. Old callers keep body inline; the new shape adds body_ref and a size field, and resources over the limit are served to old callers by resolving the pointer server-side or by refusing with a documented code, chosen once and published. Never repurpose body to carry the pointer: a client that renders it shows a storage key to a user, and that failure is silent, where a missing field would have been loud. While you are here, serialise BIGINT ids as strings in the new shape - a browser parsing JSON numbers gets IEEE-754 doubles, exact only to 2^53 - and treat that as its own breaking change requiring the same negotiation, not a quiet fix.
Add change history as a separate sub-resource, GET /v1/resources/{id}/revisions, keyset-paginated over (resource_id, version) rather than as an array inside the resource. A field added to a hot response is paid for by every caller including those that never read it, and an unbounded array inside a cached object destroys the size assumptions the cache was configured with.
Retire on evidence rather than on a date alone: count requests per negotiated version per credential, publish a Sunset header (RFC 8594) with the removal date and a link to the migration, contact the credentials still on the old version, then answer 410 Gone once it is removed. Keep each version's serialiser under snapshot tests so a refactor cannot change v1's bytes by accident.

Worked solution (40 min)

Write and date the compatibility policy as five rules, then mark which of them v1 callers cannot honour.
Choose the negotiation mechanism and the default for an unversioned request, and justify the default in one sentence.
Write the downgrade table: new state to old state, new body shape to old body shape, and what is lost in each direction.
Specify the revisions sub-resource: its URL, its cursor, and why it is not a field on the resource.
Write the sunset plan: the per-version per-credential metric, the header, the lead time, and the terminal status code.

Expected result: A dated additive policy, version negotiation over one internal model with the oldest version as the default, a downgrade table with its losses named, history as a paginated sub-resource, and a removal gated on per-credential version telemetry rather than a calendar entry.

Verify it yourself

A two-year-old integration receives a resource that is really in 'pending_review' and neither crashes nor renders a blank state.
Deleting the legacy body field from the internal model breaks exactly one serialiser and no business logic.
Every v1 response is byte-stable under snapshot tests after an unrelated refactor.

Follow-up

An old integration submits a status transition while the resource is really in 'pending_review'. What does the write path accept, and what does it reject?
Two years on you want to delete the v1 serialiser. What evidence makes that safe, and who must be contacted before it happens?
How would you test against a two-year-old integration rather than against today's source?

Relay committed events to the log without gaps or reordering

Medium · transactional outbox · at-least-once · ordering · leases

outbox_event rows are written in the same transaction as the state change and carry aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, payload and status, with a partial index on (created_at, event_id) WHERE status = 'pending'. The relay publishes about 4k events/second to a partitioned append-only log keyed by aggregate_id, with one leader per partition range holding a lease. Consumers must never miss an event; they may see one twice. Design the claim-publish-mark loop, and state exactly what consumers observe when a leader's lease expires while it is mid-batch.

Approach

Claim with SELECT ... WHERE status='pending' ORDER BY created_at, event_id LIMIT $batch FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED inside a transaction. SKIP LOCKED lets several relay workers share a range without serialising on each other's rows, and the partial index keeps the claim proportional to the backlog rather than to a table that is overwhelmingly published rows. At 4k/second a batch of 500 is eight claims per second, each an index scan of 500 entries.
Publish before marking, never the reverse, and say why it is a choice. Marking first loses the event outright if the process dies in the gap, and the loss is silent - nothing remains to retry, and it surfaces later as a projection missing a row. Publishing first can repeat the event, and repetition is what every consumer is already built to survive. That single ordering is the whole at-least-once guarantee.
Preserve the only ordering on offer. Partition by aggregate_id and never publish two events for one aggregate concurrently: claim in (created_at, event_id) order and publish sequentially within an aggregate, or hash aggregate_id to a worker slot. Order across aggregates is not available at any price here, which is why the event carries aggregate_version and the full fact rather than a delta - a consumer can then discard what it has already applied without coordinating with anyone.
State the failover behaviour precisely, because it is the consistency-versus-availability decision in this design. A lease expires because the holder is slow, and no mechanism distinguishes that from dead, so for the length of the lease window two leaders can publish the same claimed batch. The system accepts duplicates to avoid stalling publication for every aggregate in the range whenever one worker pauses. Consumers deduplicate on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and drop anything at or below what they have applied.
Bound the failure paths and pick the right alarm. A row that fails to publish increments attempts, records last_error, and moves to 'dead' after a limit so one poison payload cannot block the backlog behind it. Alert on the age of the oldest pending row, not on the relay's error rate: the failure worth catching is a relay reporting itself healthy while nothing is being published.

Follow-up

The relay is down 40 minutes and 9.6 million rows are pending. What does catch-up do to the primary, and what changes in the claim loop to survive it?
A consumer insists it never received an event. Which single query settles whether the relay lost it, and what does each answer look like?
Delivery is at-least-once. What would exactly-once require end to end, and why is that a property of the consumer rather than of the relay?

One log partition stops advancing while the others drain

Easy · poison message · head-of-line blocking · consumer lag · projections

Search results for a subset of tenants are hours stale; the rest are current. The projection consumer reports lag of zero on 15 of 16 partitions and 400,000 on one. Its error rate is flat and its CPU is idle. outbox_event has no pending rows older than a second, so the relay has published everything it holds. Identify the mechanism, give the ordered checks, and state what you do in the first ten minutes versus what you change permanently.

Approach

Read the lag distribution first. A slow consumer lags everywhere; zero on fifteen partitions and 400,000 on one is not throughput. Idle CPU on the stuck partition means the consumer is not advancing its offset at all, which points at one message it cannot get past rather than at a rate problem.
Exonerate the producer before touching the consumer. No pending outbox rows older than a second means the relay published, so the event exists in the log. This separates never sent from sent and never applied, which are different code paths and usually different owners.
Read the message at the stuck offset and the handler's log lines for its event_id. A flat error rate with no progress has two explanations and you must distinguish them: the handler is throwing and the retry loop is swallowing it, or the handler is blocking on something and never returning. Idle CPU with no error lines favours the second.
Mitigate before diagnosing further. Move the offending event to a dead-letter store and commit the offset past it. Adding consumers does nothing here, because a partition is consumed by exactly one member of the group, and the blast radius is every aggregate hashed to that partition, not only the aggregate that produced the bad event.
Fix permanently by bounding handler attempts and dead-lettering on exhaustion, so no single message can stop a partition. Then replay the dead-lettered event once the handler is fixed: it carries aggregate_id and aggregate_version, so a consumer that discards versions it has already applied can absorb the replay, and resource_revision is the fallback if the event itself is unusable.

Follow-up

The dead-lettered event carried aggregate_version 7 and the projection had applied 6. What must the replay do differently if 8 and 9 landed in the meantime?
How do you show staleness to the user while the partition is behind, given the API already returns the projection's watermark?
What changes if the message is poison because a previous deploy wrote a payload shape the current code cannot parse?

Suggested practice checklist

Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.

Day 1 — Coding, one pass at shallow depth

Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.

Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.

Day 2 — Design, one pass at shallow depth

Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.

Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.

Day 3 — Fundamentals and the practical rounds

Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.

Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.

Day 4 — The rounds that are about you, and the map

Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.

Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.

Day 5 — First chosen area, to the depth you skipped

Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.

Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.

Day 6 — Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed

Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.

Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.

Day 7 — Reassemble the loop

Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.

Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.

Bounding a vague ticket before writing code

When the requirements were thin, the interesting part is how you fenced the problem off: the assumption you wrote down, who you got to confirm it, the narrow version you shipped first so the rest stayed cheap to change. Guessing and being right is luck. Guessing in writing, where someone could correct you, is method.

How do you handle data handling and architecture selection for deep learning models?

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you organize and run a social event?

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.

Follow-up

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

Narrate an outage you owned from page to postmortem

Hard · incident response · blast radius · postmortems

Pick an incident you personally drove, ideally one where writes were affected rather than reads. In six to eight minutes: state the symptom as it first appeared on a dashboard, the blast radius you established before you knew the cause, the mitigation you applied and when, the mechanism you eventually proved, and the follow-up that would prevent a repeat. Bring numbers: error rate, tenants affected, minutes to mitigate, minutes to resolve. If you cannot name what you measured, choose a different incident.

Approach

Open on the signal rather than the cause: which metric at which percentile moved, on which service, at what time, so the listener follows the same evidence you had rather than a conclusion you already reached.
Separate mitigation from diagnosis out loud. State what you did to stop the bleeding (flag off, shed traffic, drain a lease, roll back a deploy) and say plainly that you did it before the mechanism was known, because those are two jobs with different deadlines.
Establish blast radius in countable terms: how many tenants, how many writes, and crucially whether the effect was loss or only delay. An append-only revision table or a pending outbox row means the change survived and the projection was merely behind, which is a repair rather than a data-loss incident.
Prove the mechanism instead of asserting it. Name the trace span that grew, the plan that flipped to a sequential scan, the lease that expired, plus one alternative you ruled out and the signal that stayed flat while you ruled it out.
Close on the durable fix and its cost, distinguishing what landed that week from what needed an expand-and-contract migration across several deploys, and say which of the two you actually finished.

Follow-up

What would you do differently in the first five minutes, given the same dashboard and no more information?
Which follow-up action did you deliberately not take, and why was dropping it the right call?
How did you convince yourself the mitigation was safe to apply while the cause was still unknown?