Interview guides · Aptima

Aptima Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Aptima data scientist prep: probability, sampling distributions, and stating the assumption behind every test you run.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Aptima, you are at the intersection of advanced machine learning and human performance. Unlike traditional roles focused purely on product conversion, your work directly supports national security initiatives by engineering systems that understand, augment, and predict human behavior in mission-critical environments. You are not just building models; you are bridging the gap between behavioral science and technical implementation for the Department of War (DoW).

Coding rounds for this role are usually data-manipulation shaped rather than data-structure shaped: group-bys, joins, time windows, ranking within a partition. Confirm the format before spending a week on graph traversal.

Focus areas

Report only matured cohorts for loss metrics
Reconcile amounts in minor units and currency
Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of technical rigor and strategic empathy. You will lead the design of AI agents and recommendation systems while ensuring these tools are trustworthy, explainable, and operationally suitable for users in high-stakes settings. Success here means you can navigate the complexity of real-world, often messy data to derive insights that influence how teams train, develop, and perform. You will serve as a technical lead, mentoring junior staff and translating abstract mission needs into concrete, scalable system requirements.

The Aptima interview process

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

Initial Screening

Most candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.

What to demonstrate

Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal

How to prepare

Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered

Technical Interviews

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows

Behavioral Interviews

Rounds of this kind usually include one question about work that did not go well, and it is the part that carries the most information. Anyone can narrate a shipped win. What the interviewer learns from a project that stalled is how you behave without a result to hide behind: whether you noticed the problem yourself, how long it took, and who you told. Answers that route the failure onto a data pipeline or a reorganisation close the topic without answering it, and the follow-up comes back to your own part.

What to demonstrate

Whether you found the error yourself or someone else found it, and how long it sat before anyone knew
What you changed afterwards, stated as a check you now run rather than a lesson you now believe
Whether the mistake you choose has real cost attached, such as a quarter of misdirected roadmap or a metric that was reported upward, instead of one that flatters you

How to prepare

Choose a failure you caught yourself and be ready to say what tipped you off. A story where someone else caught it is still usable, but you will be asked why you missed it.
Write down the check you added afterwards and where it lives now, so the correction is a concrete artefact rather than a resolution.
Rehearse saying the cost out loud. Candidates shrink the number by instinct once the interviewer is in the room.

Live Case Studies

A case round is decided by whether you leave the interviewer with a recommendation, not by how much analysis you narrate on the way there. The prompt is open on purpose, so the first job is to convert it into a decision someone could act on: ask what would be done differently depending on the answer. From there name the quantity that would settle it, state the assumptions you need, and commit. Candidates who cover more ground than anyone expected and still end on "it depends" score below candidates who scoped narrowly and said what they would do.

What to demonstrate

Whether the version of the question you choose to answer is genuinely narrower than the prompt and still worth answering
Whether the recommendation arrives as an action with a number attached, rather than as a summary of what you looked at
Whether assumptions are stated at the moment you rely on them, instead of collected into a disclaimer at the end
Whether you notice when a branch you are exploring would not change the decision either way

How to prepare

Take six open prompts and write only the scoping move for each: the one-sentence question you would actually answer and the decision it feeds. Give yourself three minutes per prompt and stop there.
Put a five-minute warning into every practice case and force a closing statement that names the action, the result that would justify it, and the result that would reverse it.
Record one case and count how long you talked before naming a measurable quantity. Past roughly five minutes, what you are calling scoping is narration.

Where candidates lose points

Recalibrating an underwriting cutoff on approved and funded applicants only

Rejected applicants have no repayment outcome, and they were rejected because the incumbent model scored them badly, so the missingness depends directly on the outcome being modelled. Reject inference by augmentation or parcelling fills the gap using the incumbent model's own assumptions, which means it can confirm those assumptions but cannot test them. The only genuinely new information about the reject region comes from bureau performance on rejects who borrowed elsewhere, or from a deliberately randomised approval band around the cutoff.

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

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

Interpreting a change before checking data quality and logging

Spend the first pass on row volume by day, null rates, duplicate keys, and whether the step change lands on a release or tracking-migration date. A discontinuity that coincides with a deploy is an instrumentation hypothesis before it is a behavioural one.

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

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

Questions & practice

How do you balance the need for model accuracy with the requirement for system explainability?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Explain the difference between frequentist and Bayesian approaches in the context of model uncertainty.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
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?

Measure calibration of a twelve-month default probability from scratch

Hard · calibration · brier score · binning

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (45 min)

Reduce fct_loan_performance_monthly to one row per loan_id with the maximum days_past_due and any charge_off_flag over months_on_book 0 to 12, plus the maximum months_on_book observed, and keep only loans reaching 12.
Inner-join to approved and funded applications, and record how many approved applications were dropped for immaturity and how many decisions were declines that never enter the measurement at all.
Assign deciles with a rank-based cut on model_pd_12m, then aggregate n, mean predicted, observed rate and standard error per bin.
Compute ECE, Brier, reliability, resolution, uncertainty and the residual, and print all six.
Repeat the whole computation split by model_version and compare the per-version reliability against the pooled figure.

Expected result: A ten-row reliability table with n, mean predicted, observed and standard error; an ECE of a few tenths of a percentage point to a couple of points; a Brier score close to the uncertainty term, because a rare-event model has little resolution to subtract; and a residual small relative to the reliability term.

Verify it yourself

Bin counts sum to the filtered row count, and the count-weighted mean of bin observed rates equals the overall observed rate.
Uncertainty equals obar(1 - obar) computed directly, and reliability is zero on a synthetic input where observed is set equal to predicted in every bin.
The residual shrinks as the bin count rises from 5 to 20; if it does not, the label or the binning is wrong.
Multiplying every PD by 1.5 must raise reliability and ECE while leaving resolution, uncertainty and AUC unchanged, since equal-count bins are invariant to a monotone transform.

Follow-up

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

Write a query to identify the top-performing teams based on a custom efficiency index.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.

Follow-up

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

Using window functions, how would you calculate the rolling average of a user’s performance score over their last five sessions?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.

Follow-up

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

Customers with no credit application, avoiding the NOT IN trap

Medium · null semantics · anti-join · scd type 2

Count current customers who have never submitted a credit application, broken out by segment. dim_customer is a slowly changing dimension type 2, so restrict to is_current = true, kyc_status = 'verified' and closed_at null. In fct_loan_application, customer_id is null for applicants who were not customers when they applied. Write the anti-join, return segment and customer_count, and state in one line what NOT IN (SELECT customer_id FROM fct_loan_application) returns against this table and why.

Approach

Pin the dimension to one row per customer first: is_current = true already guarantees that, but say so out loud, because forgetting it multiplies every count by the number of attribute versions a customer has accumulated.
Write the anti-join as NOT EXISTS with a correlated predicate on customer_id, which evaluates per row and is unaffected by nulls anywhere in the applications table.
Name the failure explicitly: NOT IN against a nullable column compares each candidate to a set containing NULL, the comparison yields UNKNOWN rather than TRUE, and the whole predicate is therefore never satisfied, so the query returns zero rows.
If NOT IN is required for some reason, add WHERE customer_id IS NOT NULL inside the subquery, which restores the intended semantics, and note that a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter is equally safe.
Group by segment and sanity-check the total against the unfiltered current-customer count minus the count of distinct applying customers.

Worked solution (20 min)

SELECT segment, COUNT(*) FROM dim_customer c WHERE c.is_current AND c.kyc_status = 'verified' AND c.closed_at IS NULL.
Add AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM fct_loan_application a WHERE a.customer_id = c.customer_id).
Group by segment and order by the count descending.
Run the NOT IN variant alongside it and record that it returns zero rows, then run it again with IS NOT NULL added to the subquery and confirm the counts match the NOT EXISTS version.

Expected result: One row per segment present in the current dimension (retail, sme, corporate), each with a non-zero customer_count. The NOT EXISTS and the null-guarded NOT IN forms agree exactly; the unguarded NOT IN form returns no rows at all.

Verify it yourself

COUNT(DISTINCT customer_id) equals COUNT(*) on the filtered dimension, which confirms is_current really collapsed the type 2 versions.
The total across segments plus COUNT(DISTINCT customer_id) from fct_loan_application restricted to current verified open customers equals the full current verified open customer count.
Swapping NOT EXISTS for the unguarded NOT IN changes the result from a populated set to an empty one, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Follow-up

Rewrite it as a LEFT JOIN with IS NULL and say when you would prefer that form to NOT EXISTS.
How does the answer change if you want customers who never applied as of a historical date rather than today?
The applications table has 40,000 rows with a null customer_id. What are those rows, and are they a data quality problem or a product fact?

Describe how you would prioritize features for an AI agent designed to assist in team decision-making.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

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

How would you design a metric to measure "trust" in a human-AI collaborative system?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

What are the most common pitfalls when running A/B tests in a small-sample, high-stakes environment?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

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

How do you account for selection bias when analyzing data from human-subject experiments?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

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

If a key performance indicator for a training system drops suddenly, how would you investigate the root cause?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Success metrics for loosening a fraud decline threshold

Medium · cost asymmetry · guardrails · cohort maturity

A risk team proposes lowering the risk_score cutoff that produces auth_result = 'declined_risk_rule'. Settled volume per active customer is the north star; net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume is the guardrail. The two move in opposite directions by construction. Specify the readout: primary metric, guardrail, the maturity window each is read at, and the decision rule agreed before launch. Show the expected-cost arithmetic that sets the cutoff using an average ticket of 200 units, a 1.5 percent contribution margin, 35 percent recovery on fraud losses, and 12 units of downstream value lost per false decline.

Approach

Refuse the two-metric framing and convert both sides into one currency. Approving a fraudulent transaction costs the amount net of recovery; declining a good one costs the forgone margin plus the downstream value of the customer's reaction. Decline when p times C_FN exceeds (1 minus p) times C_FP, so the break-even probability is p* = C_FP / (C_FP + C_FN).
Put the numbers in. C_FN = 200 times (1 minus 0.35) = 130, C_FP = 200 times 0.015 plus 12 = 15, so p* = 15 / 145 = 10.3 percent. Then show the threshold is amount-dependent: at a 2,000 ticket C_FN = 1,300 and C_FP = 42, giving p* = 3.1 percent, so a single global cutoff is already the wrong shape before any tuning starts.
State the precondition that makes this arithmetic legal: risk_score has to be calibrated, so that a score of 0.10 corresponds to an observed 10 percent fraud rate. A score that only ranks makes p* meaningless. Check the reliability curve before quoting any cutoff to anyone.
Set the maturity windows separately. Volume is readable within days, fraud loss is not, so the guardrail is read only on transaction months with at least 120 days of dispute maturity and the decision stays open until then, or a leading indicator is agreed in advance with its bias written down.
Agree the stopping rule before launch in the right units: revert if matured net fraud loss per unit of incremental settled volume exceeds the figure implied by p*. Fraud loss is supposed to rise when the cutoff loosens, so a rule that triggers on any rise is a rule that was never going to allow the change.
Report the swap set rather than portfolio totals: the transactions the new cutoff approves that the old one declined, and their realised loss rate. Portfolio aggregates dilute the change into invisibility.

Worked solution (30 min)

Compute p* at ticket sizes of 50, 200 and 2,000 with the given margin, recovery and false-decline cost, and tabulate them.
Bucket historical declined_risk_rule authorizations by risk_score decile and, for each bucket, write down what outcome data exists and what does not.
Write the readout spec: primary metric, guardrail, the 120-day maturity rule, the swap-set table and the numeric stopping rule.
Write the calibration precondition in two sentences and say how you would test it.

Expected result: A threshold table giving p* = 28.2 percent at a 50 ticket, 10.3 percent at 200 and 3.1 percent at 2,000, plus a readout spec whose guardrail is explicitly unreadable for 120 days and whose stopping rule is expressed as loss per incremental unit of settled volume rather than as a loss level.

Verify it yourself

p* falls as ticket size rises, because fraud loss scales with the amount while the false-decline cost is mostly a fixed relationship term.
Setting C_FP equal to C_FN returns p* = 0.5. If your formula does not, the numerator and denominator are the wrong way round.
The declined population carries no fraud labels, so any realised fraud rate quoted for the region below the old cutoff has to come from a randomised approval sample rather than from the historical table.

Follow-up

Fraud loss in basis points falls after launch. Name two ways that happens without any improvement in decisioning.
How do you keep observing outcomes in the region the rule still declines?
What changes if the 12 units of downstream value is a guess with no evidence behind it?

Settled volume jumps after a new acceptance corridor launches

Medium · minor units · currency conversion · reconciliation

Settled payment volume per active customer rose 12 percent in the month a new acceptance corridor went live. The pipeline sums settlement_amount_minor from fct_payment_authorization and divides by 100 to get major units. Columns available: amount_minor, transaction_currency, captured_amount_minor, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency, settlement_fx_rate, settled_at, is_reversal, issuer_country, acquirer_country. Confirm or refute the 12 percent, and specify exactly the conversion the metric should be using.

Approach

Split the month-over-month increase by settlement_currency. If one currency carries nearly all of it while its transaction count barely moved, the problem is arithmetic rather than demand, and that is a two-minute check.
Look up each currency's ISO 4217 exponent. Dividing a three-decimal currency by 100 instead of 1000 overstates it tenfold; dividing a zero-decimal currency by 100 understates it hundredfold. Neither is a rounding issue.
Rewrite the conversion to scale settlement_amount_minor by ten to the power of that currency's exponent, then convert to the reporting currency. Do not reuse settlement_fx_rate for this; it is the rate applied between transaction and settlement currency at settlement time, not a reporting-currency rate.
Check the other half of the series too. settlement_amount_minor is denominated in settlement_currency while amount_minor is in transaction_currency, so any series that mixes the two is uninterpretable regardless of the exponent fix.
Exclude reversals and refunds, recompute, then reconcile the corrected total to the settlement ledger for the same period and show the tie-out in the write-up.
Recompute the per-customer denominator on the corrected month, since a new corridor adds customers as well as volume and the ratio can move either way once the numerator is right.

Follow-up

Where else in the warehouse does a hardcoded divide-by-100 appear, and how would you find every instance?
What test would fail the build the next time a currency with a different exponent is onboarded?
The reporting-currency rate is itself a choice. Which rate, on which date, and why does finance care about the answer?

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.

Rigour against a deadline

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

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

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Disagree with a product manager over an approval-rate target

Medium · metric design · denominators · influence without authority

A product manager proposes a quarterly goal of raising card authorization approval rate by 150 basis points, measured as approved authorizations divided by all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. You believe that metric can be hit with no customer benefit, because merchant retry chains, zero-amount verification authorizations, incremental authorizations and reversals all sit in the denominator, and declines skew toward high-value cross-border ecommerce. You support the underlying goal. In one working session, change the metric without killing the initiative, and name the guardrail you would accept.

Approach

Separate the goal from the metric out loud and agree with the goal first, so the disagreement stays narrow and technical rather than becoming positional.
Demonstrate the failure rather than asserting it: compute the proposed metric and the dollar-weighted collapsed version over the same recent window, and find a period where they moved in opposite directions.
Propose the replacement precisely: sum of approved amount_minor over sum of attempted amount_minor, after collapsing retries to one attempt per card_token_id, merchant_id and amount_minor within a 15-minute window, excluding is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, with everything converted to one reporting currency before summing.
Attach the guardrail that makes the target honest: matured first-chargeback rate and net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months carrying at least 120 days of maturity.
Give the product manager something back: the replacement metric cuts cleanly by channel and issuer_country, which makes a roadmap of merchant-specific and authentication fixes legible in a way the blended rate never was.

Follow-up

How do you identify a retry chain when the merchant varies the amount slightly between attempts?
The product manager wants a weekly read on the guardrail. What is the earliest defensible signal, and how do you label it?

Defend a vintage finding that contradicts the portfolio dashboard

Medium · vintage analysis · mix shift · stakeholder pushback

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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