Interview guides · Audi

Audi Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

API design practice for Audi software engineer candidates: compatibility, versioning, and changes you cannot take back.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Audi, you are at the intersection of traditional automotive engineering and cutting-edge digital transformation. Your work is fundamental to the Audi brand promise, as you contribute to the development of sophisticated systems that power everything from autonomous driving features and advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) to complex infotainment and vehicle navigation platforms. You are not just writing code; you are building the software architecture that defines the modern, premium driving experience.

Prepare in one language you know well enough to debug in rather than the one you think reads best. Under a clock an unfamiliar language costs you standard-library lookups and iteration mechanics, and that time comes out of your thinking budget, not your typing budget.

Focus areas

Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors
Trace a symptom to a mechanism under load
Make every write idempotent under retry

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of technical precision and a deep appreciation for safety, reliability, and innovation. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams—ranging from hardware engineers and product managers to data scientists—to solve high-stakes challenges at scale. Whether you are optimizing memory management in embedded systems or designing scalable backend services for connected vehicles, your contributions directly impact how millions of users interact with their vehicles, making this a role of significant strategic importance to the future of mobility.

The Audi interview process

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

Initial Screening

The person on this call usually cannot evaluate your code and does not need to. They write a short paragraph, and that paragraph is what a hiring manager skims when deciding who to put on your loop. So the test is not whether your work was hard, it is whether a non-engineer can repeat it correctly. Name systems by what they did rather than by their internal codename, give each project a shape (what was breaking, what you changed, what happened after), and keep the whole walkthrough near ninety seconds. Depth that cannot survive a paraphrase reads as vagueness.

What to demonstrate

Whether a non-engineer can restate your projects without distorting them, since their paraphrase is what travels to the hiring manager, not your sentences
Whether each project has a shape rather than a stack list: the failure or constraint, the change you made, the result and how it was measured
Whether you can say what was yours inside a team project without either inflating it or disappearing into the plural

How to prepare

Rewrite each headline project as two sentences with no internal system names and no acronyms outside your company, then say them to someone outside engineering and have them repeat them back. Fix whatever came back wrong
Attach one measured number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where nothing was ever measured, say that plainly rather than reaching for a plausible percentage
Time the background walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role to a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one

Technical Evaluations

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Meetings with Managers

You cannot drill a format you do not know, so put the preparation into material that travels. Three pieces of your own work, each rehearsed until you can take a follow-up you did not anticipate, will carry a conversation or a code walkthrough equally well. Specificity is what separates that from filler. A number needs its definition before it means anything: a p99 is over some window and measured at some hop, and a server-side figure excludes the queueing and network time a client would see. The number you cannot qualify is the one to leave out.

What to demonstrate

Whether your examples carry detail only someone who did the work would hold, such as what the binding constraint actually was, which alternative you rejected and why it was worse, and what you measured on each side of the change
Whether a number survives one follow-up, meaning you can say what it was measured over and whether it moved because of your change or merely alongside it
Whether a failure is described with the specific change that followed it, rather than a lesson stated in general terms
Whether your part in a team effort is stated accurately, including what other people did

How to prepare

Write a page on each of three projects covering the constraint, the option you rejected, the measurement before and after, and what went wrong. Cut any line you cannot take a follow-up on, since you are writing the parts you will be pressed on rather than a summary.
Recover the real figures while you still have access: request volume, data size, latency with its percentile and window, team size, timeline. Note where each came from, whether a dashboard, a design document or memory, and mark the estimates so you can say which they are out loud.
Take your weakest project story to someone who works in a different area and have them ask why four times in succession. The point where you run out of answer is the part to go and re-read before the round.

Where candidates lose points

Shipping a migration and the code that depends on it as a single change

During any rolling deploy, and for as long as a rollback remains possible, old and new code execute against the same schema at the same time. A migration that drops or renames a column breaks every instance that has not restarted yet, and code that requires a column the migration has not applied breaks every instance that restarted early. The discipline is expand then contract: add the new column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, move reads across once the backfill is verified, and only then stop writing the old shape and drop it - four deploys, usually spread over days. It feels disproportionate until the first rollback, at which point it is the only reason the previous version still runs.

Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have

Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.

Writing code before the input contract is pinned down

Before the first line, state the types, the size bounds, whether duplicates, negatives or an empty input are possible, whether the input is sorted, whether you may mutate it, and what the function returns when nothing matches. Every one of those answers changes the code, and discovering one at minute twenty costs a rewrite you no longer have time for.

A cache with no invalidation story

Say how an entry goes stale, how long you can serve it stale, and what happens when many requests miss the same key at the same instant. One popular key expiring under load sends every concurrent request to the origin together; single-flight coalescing, jittered expiry, or serving stale while revalidating are the standard answers.

Questions & practice

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.
Expire idle destinations, or memory grows with every destination ever seen rather than with the live set. Hold the rings in a bounded LRU keyed on destination_id and treat a miss as no history, which is the correct default for an endpoint that has been silent for a minute.
Keep the half-open probe out of the window arithmetic. After the circuit opens, one probe per interval decides whether to close it, and folding that single success into a window that still holds a 100 percent failure history would reopen the destination on one data point.

Worked solution (20 min)

Define the bucket struct and the advance step: take floor(finished_at_ms / 1000), compare with the ring's current second, zero min(delta, 60) buckets forward, then write into the new head.
Trace a destination that receives 5 attempts, goes silent for 90 seconds, then receives one more, and confirm the rate is computed from one attempt rather than six.
Compute total memory for 40,000 destinations at 60 buckets of two 4-byte counters, and state what changes if the window widens to 300 seconds.
Write the open rule as a single predicate combining the minimum-attempt floor with the rate threshold.

Expected result: A per-destination ring of 60 one-second (attempts, failures) buckets advanced lazily for amortised O(1) cost, roughly 480 bytes of counters per destination and about 20 to 25 MB for 40,000 of them, an LRU bound on live rings, and an open rule requiring both a minimum attempt count in the window and a rate above threshold.

Verify it yourself

After 60 seconds of silence a destination's window holds zero attempts and cannot open a circuit.
Memory measured with one hot destination and 39,999 idle ones is indistinguishable from the reverse, which the deque version would fail.
Replaying the same attempt stream with the clock shifted by an hour yields the same final rate.

Follow-up

The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?
How would you make the window survive a process restart, and is it worth the cost?

Merge partitioned event streams into one ordered feed with bounded lateness

Hard · k-way merge · watermarks · out-of-order streams

The read-model service consumes 64 log partitions carrying about 4,000 events per second in total. Each partition is ordered within itself, but partitions drift by up to 30 seconds, and the activity feed must present a tenant's events in occurred_at order. Produce the merge. State its complexity, the buffer it requires in events and in bytes, what happens when one partition is idle, and what you do with an event that arrives after you have already emitted its position. Payloads average 1 KB.

Approach

Merge with a min-heap over the 64 partition heads keyed on (occurred_at, event_id): O(log P) per event and O(n log P) overall. The tie-break on event_id is what makes the output deterministic when two partitions carry the same millisecond, which matters because the feed is paginated and a non-deterministic order reorders pages under the reader.
Emitting the heap head is only correct once every partition has produced everything up to that timestamp, so the emit condition is a watermark: the minimum across partitions of the highest occurred_at seen, less the allowed lateness. Events are held until the watermark passes them, which is what turns individually ordered streams into a jointly ordered one.
Size the buffer from the lateness rather than guessing: 4,000 events per second times 30 seconds is 120,000 buffered events, and at 1 KB each about 120 MB of heap. That number is the real price of the ordering guarantee and belongs in front of whoever asked for it.
Handle the idle partition explicitly, because it fails the feed rather than corrupting it: a partition with no traffic never advances its own maximum, so the watermark freezes and output stops entirely. Either every partition emits a periodic idle marker carrying the broker's current time, or the watermark falls back to wall clock for a partition silent beyond a threshold.
Choose the late-event policy from what the projection is keyed on. The projection upserts on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and discards a version it has already applied, so a late event is safe to apply out of order and correctness never depended on the merge at all. Apply it, recompute the affected feed page, and count lateness so the 30-second budget can be re-derived from data rather than folklore.
Say what the merge does not buy: ordering is guaranteed within one aggregate by the log's partitioning, and no watermark makes the cross-aggregate order authoritative. Two events from different aggregates in the same millisecond have no true order, so the feed's order is a presentation choice that must be stable rather than correct.

Follow-up

The lateness budget is raised to five minutes. What is the new buffer, and what besides memory changes?
The consumer restarts. Where does it resume from, and what does the feed look like for the first 30 seconds?
One partition is ten minutes behind because its producer is slow. Do you stall the feed or emit without it?

Archive a resource graph without breaking live references or recursing

Medium · graph traversal · topological order · tenant isolation

Resources reference other resources within a tenant; for the largest tenant the reference table holds up to 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges. Archiving a resource must archive everything reachable from it that nothing outside the set still references, refuse when a live external referrer exists, and terminate when references form cycles, which they legitimately do. Produce the archive order and the refusal list, targeting O(V+E). Say what stops the traversal crossing a tenant boundary, and why recursion is the wrong control structure at this size.

Approach

Load the subgraph with the tenant predicate on both endpoints of the edge, not only on the side you started from. Scoping the left table alone is the classic cross-tenant leak: one mis-entered edge then pulls another tenant's resources into the traversal and, worse, into the archive.
Traverse iteratively with an explicit stack. A 2,000,000-node graph can hold a chain deep enough to exhaust a native stack in the low tens of thousands of frames, and that failure is a process crash rather than an error you can return.
Treat cycles as data rather than corruption: compute strongly connected components with Tarjan in O(V+E) using its own explicit stack, then condense. The condensation is a DAG, so a topological order over it gives the archive order, and every member of a component archives in one transaction because no order within a cycle is valid.
Decide refusals with reverse edges. A candidate is archivable only if every in-edge originates inside the candidate set, so build the transpose or count in-degrees restricted to the visited set, and emit each blocked resource with the id of the external referrer, which is the only part of the answer an operator can act on.
Store the graph as CSR rather than a map of lists: an offsets array of V+1 8-byte entries plus E 8-byte targets is about 80 MB at this size, where boxed adjacency lists cost several times that and lose cache locality on every hop.
Run Kahn over the condensation for the order in O(V+E). If the emitted count is short of the component count the condensation step itself is wrong, since a condensation cannot contain a cycle, which makes the check free.

Follow-up

The graph is read in one query and the archive writes a minute later. What can change in between, and how do you make the write safe?
The candidate set is 400,000 resources. Is that one transaction, and if not, what does a half-finished archive look like to a reader?
An edge points at a resource in another tenant. Is that a refusal, an error, or an alert?

Stop tag and share joins from fanning out a page

Medium · join fan-out · semi-joins · many-to-many

resource_tag is (resource_id, tag_id) with PK (resource_id, tag_id); resource_share is (resource_id, shared_with_user_id, permission). The tagged-and-shared listing inner-joins resource to both, filters tenant_id, tag_id = ANY($2) and shared_with_user_id = $3, orders by updated_at DESC and takes 50. Pages come back with fewer than 50 distinct resources and the total in the header is far too high. Explain the row multiplication, rewrite both the page query and the count query so each is correct, and name the index each one needs. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Do the arithmetic against the predicates that are actually there. An inner join emits one row per matching child row, and both joins are filtered: tag_id = ANY($2) admits only the requested tags, shared_with_user_id = $3 admits one user's share rows. So a resource holding three of the requested tags and shared with $3 once yields three rows, not one — the multiplier is its count of matching tags times its share rows for that single user, and that second factor is 1 unless the table admits duplicate (resource_id, shared_with_user_id) pairs. LIMIT 50 then limits rows rather than resources, and COUNT(*) counts pairs — the header is the product, not the population.
Reject DISTINCT as the fix. It deduplicates after the product has been built, so the planner must materialise and sort the fanned-out set before the LIMIT can apply, and it leaves any SUM or AVG in the same select list wrong.
Rewrite both filters as semi-joins, keeping resource as the only row source: AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = r.resource_id AND rt.tag_id = ANY($2)) and the same shape against resource_share. A semi-join stops at the first match per resource and preserves the driving index order, so ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50 still stops after 50 rows.
Count with the same predicates and no join at all: SELECT count(*) FROM resource r WHERE r.tenant_id = $1 AND r.status = 'active' AND EXISTS (...) AND EXISTS (...). Nothing multiplies a resource, so the number is the population.
Attach the tags for display after the page has been cut — LEFT JOIN LATERAL (SELECT array_agg(rt.tag_id) FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = p.resource_id) ON TRUE over the 50 returned rows. Aggregate over the page, never over the tenant.
Index both directions and say which query each serves: PK (resource_id, tag_id) serves the lateral lookup, (tag_id, resource_id) serves the EXISTS probe by tag, and resource_share needs (shared_with_user_id, resource_id) for the same reason. An index covering one direction only leaves the other as a scan.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build a tenant where each resource carries 0-5 tags from a 20-tag vocabulary and is shared with 0-4 distinct users, then bind $2 to three tags and $3 to a user holding shares on about half the resources. Run the joined query and compare its row count to the distinct resource count on page one.
Run COUNT(*) on the joined shape and on the EXISTS shape and compare both to a ground truth computed from distinct ids; then give $3 a second permission row on 10% of resources and record which of the two counts moves.
EXPLAIN both page queries and compare rows-read plus the presence of a Sort or HashAggregate node above the join.
Add (tag_id, resource_id), re-run the EXISTS probe, and record the plan change on the inner side.

Expected result: The EXISTS page returns exactly 50 distinct resources and reads about 50 driving rows with no aggregate above the join. The EXISTS count matches the ground truth. The joined COUNT(*) is larger by roughly the average number of matching tags per qualifying resource — the tags it holds from $2, not its total tag count — times its share rows for $3, which is 1 until the duplicate permission rows exist and rises with them afterwards. The EXISTS count is unchanged by those duplicates.

Verify it yourself

The page's resource_id list has no duplicates and is 50 long whenever at least 50 rows match.
count(*) from the rewrite equals count(DISTINCT r.resource_id) over the joined shape.
EXPLAIN shows a semi-join node on the inner side rather than a full join followed by a unique or aggregate step.

Follow-up

The filter changes from 'any of these tags' to 'all of these tags'. Rewrite it and state what it costs relative to the ANY form.
A resource can be shared with the same user twice under different permissions. Does your count change, and should it?
Where does the correct total come from when the tenant holds 4M resources and the header must not cost 200 ms?

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?

Tell us about yourself and your background.

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.

Follow-up

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

Describe your thesis research or your most recent major technical project in detail.

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Specify the outbound webhook contract a customer endpoint can verify

Medium · webhooks · hmac · at-least-once · ordering

Egress delivery sends resource.created, resource.updated and resource.archived to roughly 40k customer endpoints at about 1.5k deliveries/second, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10 second connect-plus-read timeout, at-least-once from the relay. The receiver is code you do not control, often behind a proxy that may re-encode JSON. Specify the payload envelope, how the receiver verifies authenticity and rejects replays, what ordering it may assume, how it deduplicates, which status codes it should return and what each means to us, and the retry, circuit and replay behaviour.

Approach

Send the fact, not a pointer: event_id, event_type, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, occurred_at and the payload copied from outbox_event. A receiver told only that resource 42 changed has to call back, and the call back returns a newer state than the event describes - that is precisely how a consumer applies changes out of order while believing it is following them.
Sign the exact bytes on the wire: HMAC-SHA256 over the timestamp, a separator, and the raw body, in a header, compared in constant time before the body is parsed. Instruct receivers to verify the raw bytes, never a re-serialised copy, since a proxy that reorders keys or changes whitespace invalidates a signature computed over re-encoded JSON. Reject a timestamp outside a tolerance - five minutes is typical - and keep a short seen-set of event_ids, because a capture replayed inside the tolerance still verifies.
Support key rotation by sending several signature values in one header during the overlap window and publishing that any one that verifies is sufficient. Without that rule a key rotation is a synchronised outage across every destination at once.
State the guarantee as it actually is: at-least-once and unordered, including within a single aggregate_id. The outbox is ordered per aggregate at the source, but the relay holds up to 4 requests in flight per destination and backs off each retry independently, so a version 6 delivery that needs one retry lands after a version 7 that succeeded on its first attempt. Publishing per-aggregate ordering we do not enforce is worse than publishing none, because a receiver that trusts it overwrites new state with old. Receivers deduplicate on event_id and apply conditionally - UPDATE ... WHERE aggregate_version < :incoming, or the same comparison under a row lock on the aggregate - which discards stale redeliveries and stays correct when two deliveries for one aggregate are processed at the same time. A duplicate and an out-of-order delivery then have the same outcome: no-op.
Define the response contract in the receiver's terms. 2xx means durably accepted, and accepting means writing it down - a receiver that does its processing inline inside our 10 second timeout will be retried while it is still working. 4xx is permanent and we stop. 429, 5xx and timeouts are retried with capped exponential backoff and full jitter within the per-destination concurrency cap, and a circuit opens after a run of consecutive failures and half-opens on a schedule, so a permanently dead endpoint costs one probe per interval instead of a growing queue.
Give them a recovery path that does not involve us holding a queue for everyone: a visible parked state, and a replay endpoint keyed by event_id or time range, so a receiver that was down for two hours asks for the gap on its own schedule.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the envelope fields and mark which are needed for deduplication and which for discarding a stale delivery.
Write the signature string construction and the receiver's verification steps in order, including the constant-time compare and the tolerance check.
Write the receiver's idempotent apply: dedupe on event_id, then the version-conditional write that discards stale and concurrently delivered redeliveries.
Write the status-to-action table from our side: which codes retry, which stop, and what opens the circuit.
Describe the parked state and the replay call, including what the customer must supply.

Expected result: A self-contained signed envelope, verification over raw bytes with a replay window and a seen-set, an at-least-once guarantee that states delivery is unordered even within one aggregate, a version-conditional apply, a status table that distinguishes permanent from transient, and a customer-driven replay path.

Verify it yourself

Delivering the same event twice leaves the receiver's state identical to delivering it once.
Delivering version 7 and then version 6 for one aggregate leaves version 7 applied.
A destination that always times out costs one probe per circuit interval rather than a retry queue.

Follow-up

A customer insists an event never arrived. What do you check, in order, and which table settles the argument?
A receiver cannot store a version and asks us to deliver their events in order. What would the relay have to give up to offer that, and what does one failing event then do to the rest of their stream?

Listing latency scales with page size, not with filters

Easy · n+1 · latency · query batching

The tenant listing endpoint reads resource filtered by tenant_id and status, ordered by updated_at DESC, and returns each row plus the owner's display name from app_user and the actor of that resource's latest resource_revision. p99 is 55 ms at 10 rows per page and 1.4 s at 200. Database telemetry shows 401 statements per request, each under 1 ms, and nothing in the slow-query log. Diagnose the cause and give the fix, stating the statement count per request and the p99 you expect afterwards.

Approach

Read the counters before forming a theory. 401 statements for 200 rows is one driver query plus two per row, and sub-millisecond execution with an empty slow-query log rules out a bad plan. The time is round trips, which is why it is invisible in every per-query metric and scales with rows returned rather than with filter selectivity.
Name the two per-row statements from their normalised text: a single-row app_user lookup by user_id, and a resource_revision lookup by resource_id ordered by version DESC LIMIT 1. Confirm by dropping those two response fields and watching the statement count fall to one. That locates the calls in the serialisation layer, not the repository.
Check that the arithmetic accounts for the whole gap. Measure one round trip to the replica in isolation; 400 trips at roughly 3 ms of network plus 0.2 ms of execution is about 1.3 s on top of a 55 ms baseline, which matches. If the multiplication had fallen short, the N+1 would only be part of the story and you would keep looking.
Batch both lookups. Collect owner_user_ids and resource_ids from the driver query, then issue WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND user_id = ANY($2) for the users, and PostgreSQL's SELECT DISTINCT ON (resource_id) ... WHERE resource_id = ANY($2) ORDER BY resource_id, version DESC for the latest revision, which the UNIQUE (resource_id, version) index serves directly. On an engine without DISTINCT ON, use a lateral join or a row_number window. Three statements per request at any page size.
Keep the tenant predicate in the batched query. The per-row version was implicitly scoped because its ids came from tenant-scoped rows; a batched user_id = ANY(...) with no tenant_id is an unscoped read that behaves correctly only as long as the id list is trustworthy.
Re-measure at 10, 50 and 200 rows and confirm the statement count is constant. Latency should now track bytes returned.

Follow-up

The page size is capped at 200 today. What breaks first if it is raised to 2,000, and is it still this bug?
How do you stop the next N+1 from reaching production, given that no individual query is slow and the endpoint's tests pass?
The latest-revision actor is only used to render an avatar. Make the case for denormalising it onto resource, and name the write anomaly that introduces.

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate senior enough that the loop turns on design and judgement rather than on whether the coding round gets finished. Five days build one system properly and then stress it; coding gets a single maintenance day, on the assumption that the risk at this level is an unexamined tradeoff rather than a missed algorithm.

Day 1 — Numbers before diagrams

Build your own reference card of the figures you will re-derive all week: bytes for a realistic record, requests per second implied by a given daily active count, and the storage that a year at a given write rate produces. Derive each one rather than copying it, because the derivation is what survives a follow-up.
Turn one product statement into capacity requirements. From ten million daily users at four writes and forty reads each, state the peak-to-average factor you are assuming and why, then produce peak write QPS, peak read QPS and a year of storage.
Write the two numbers whose order of magnitude changes the design, the read-to-write ratio and the working-set size against memory per node, and state the threshold at which each one flips your answer.

Deliverable: A one-page numbers card and one worked capacity estimate with every assumption written down.

Day 2 — One system, from requirements to schema

Spend the first ten minutes producing only functional requirements, non-functional targets with numbers attached, a p99 latency, a durability expectation, a consistency requirement, and an explicit out-of-scope list.
Define the interface before the boxes: the three or four endpoints, their parameters, what each returns, and which of them are idempotent.
Write the data model, then write the single access pattern that justifies it, and state what the schema would have to become if the dominant access pattern were the other one.

Deliverable: One design carried to endpoint-and-schema depth, with non-functional targets expressed as numbers and a written out-of-scope list.

Day 3 — The consistency you are actually buying

Write out what a client sees under asynchronous replication when its write commits on the leader and its next read is served by a lagging follower, then write the two fixes, pinning that session's reads to the leader for a bounded window or carrying a version token the replica must reach, and the cost of each.
Work the quorum arithmetic on paper for N of three with W and R of two, and separate what R + W > N does guarantee, that any read set intersects any write set, from what it does not: on its own it is not linearizability, and a sloppy quorum that accepts writes on nodes outside the preference list breaks even the intersection.
Take two storage choices with different defaults, a single-leader relational store committing synchronously and a quorum-replicated store that converges eventually, and write the specific product behaviour that would be wrong under each, rather than a general statement about which is stronger.

Deliverable: A page separating what quorum overlap guarantees from what it does not, with one concrete product misbehaviour attached to each gap.

Day 4 — Failure is the design

For one write path, work through the case where the client times out after the server has already committed, then design the idempotency key: who generates it, how long it is retained, and what the duplicate request returns.
Express the retry policy as parameters rather than as a word: maximum attempts, base delay, backoff factor, jitter, and which error classes are retried at all. Then state why retrying a non-idempotent write without a key is a correctness bug and not merely waste.
Compute the fan-out effect on tail latency. If a request waits on ten backends and each independently exceeds its p99 one percent of the time, the chance at least one is slow is 1 - 0.99^10, about ten percent. Then write why independence is the optimistic assumption and what correlates them in practice.
Name the backpressure mechanism for one queue or one dependency in the design, a bounded queue with shedding or a concurrency limit, and write what the caller is told when it engages.

Deliverable: One write path with an idempotency design, a parameterised retry policy, and a written tail-latency calculation with its assumption named.

Day 5 — Scaling the hot path

Choose cache-aside or write-through for one read path and write the staleness window each produces, then name the invalidation event and what the system does when that event is lost.
Design against the stampede: either coalesce requests so only one recomputes a missing key, or refresh early with jittered expiry, and write why identical TTLs on keys populated in the same moment produce a synchronised expiry and a thundering herd.
Shard one table by a key you choose, then answer the two questions that break the choice: which queries now require a scatter-gather, and what happens to the distribution when one tenant is a hundred times larger than the median.
Write the cost of adding a node under plain modulo placement, where nearly every key moves, against consistent hashing, where roughly one key in n+1 moves, and state what virtual nodes are for.

Deliverable: A caching and sharding decision for one path, each with its failure mode and its rebalancing cost written beside it.

Day 6 — Keep the coding hand in, at the bar that applies to you

Solve one medium problem in thirty minutes, then spend twenty more making it production-shaped: named invariants, validation at the boundary, and errors that distinguish a caller mistake from an internal fault.
Write the tests you would require of a colleague's version of that function: one for empty input, one for the boundary, and one for the case the implementation is most likely to get wrong.
Read a piece of your own code from six months ago and write the change you would ask for, phrased as you would actually phrase it in review.

Deliverable: One problem hardened to review standard, with its test list and one written review comment.

Day 7 — Defend it while being interrupted

Run a forty-five-minute design mock with an interviewer briefed to change a requirement halfway, a tenfold traffic increase or a new strict consistency requirement, and to push on one number you estimated.
Rehearse the two sentences a senior loop is listening for: naming the tradeoff you are choosing against and why, and saying what you would measure to learn that the choice was wrong.
Prepare the design you regret: a real decision, the constraint that produced it, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards.

Deliverable: Mock notes recording how the design changed under the new requirement, plus a written account of one regretted decision.

What the behavioural round is actually measuring

Every story you tell gets read for blast radius and judgement: what could have broken, who else it touched, what you knew at the moment you decided. Nobody can audit your code in an hour, so they audit your reasoning instead. Pick work where the call was genuinely yours and the consequences were real enough to remember.

What do you know about Audi?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.

Follow-up

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

How do you handle complex challenges in a team environment?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

What are your short-term and long-term professional objectives?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Why did you choose Audi as your next career step?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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