Interview guides · Axcess IO

Axcess IO Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Software engineer prep for Axcess IO: design exercises weighted toward the constraints of B2B software and infrastructure work.

The 60-second brief

The Software Engineer role at Axcess IO is a pivotal position that bridges the gap between infrastructure management and software development. You will be tasked with building robust, scalable solutions that support high-availability cloud environments. This role is not just about writing code; it is about understanding the underlying systems—networking, cloud architecture, and operating systems—that keep modern digital products running.

If the loop includes an asynchronous take-home, treat it as a code review of you rather than as a puzzle: structure, what you chose to test, and what you wrote down about the constraint you were working under. Hold the stated time box and say what you would have done with more of it.

Focus areas

Make every write idempotent under client retries
Bound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits
Scope every query and cache key by tenant

Overview

You will contribute to projects that directly impact how Axcess IO delivers its services to clients. Whether you are automating deployments, optimizing cloud resources, or building internal tools, your work will directly influence operational efficiency and system reliability. This position is ideal for engineers who enjoy solving complex, real-world problems and who are interested in the intersection of cloud computing and software engineering.

Expect a high-paced, challenging environment where technical curiosity is valued as much as execution. You will work alongside experienced leadership and cross-functional teams, making this an ideal space to grow your expertise in,, and distributed system design.

The Axcess IO interview process

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

Initial 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

Technical Deep Dives

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

Leadership Interviews

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

Paginating a growing table with limit and offset

Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.

Serialising a tenant's writes through select ... for update on a single counter row

It is the first change that makes a counter correct, and it caps that tenant's write throughput at roughly one divided by the lock hold time. A transaction that takes the lock, makes a network call and then commits holds it for the entire round trip: at 2 ms that is about 500 writes per second for the whole tenant, and the largest tenants are exactly the ones that exceed it. The damage then spreads, because every waiter holds a database connection while it queues, so one hot tenant drains the shared pool and the symptom presents as a site-wide latency incident rather than as a lock problem. The repairs are to shrink the critical section to a single statement, to shard the counter into per-(tenant, hour) or per-(tenant, bucket) rows and sum on read, or to batch in memory and flush periodically while accepting the bounded loss that batching implies.

Listing technologies instead of trade-offs

Name the property the design needs first, such as ordered range scans, multi-entity transactions, cheap appends, or a predictable p99, then pick something that provides it and say what it gives up in exchange. Almost any component is defensible once you state the requirement it satisfies and the one it sacrifices.

Trusting input because it came from your own front end

Anything crossing a trust boundary is hostile: parameterise queries instead of building SQL by concatenation, validate against an allow-list rather than a deny-list, and bound the size of anything you allocate from a request. Raising this unprompted in an API or design question is a cheap and unusually strong signal.

Questions & practice

Merge two lists, remove duplicates, and return a sorted result.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

Follow-up

Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Rearrange an array so that all negative numbers appear before all positive numbers.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

Follow-up

What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Calculate the angle between the hour and minute hands of a clock at a specific time.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.

Follow-up

How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Count the number of repeated characters in a string.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

Follow-up

What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Seal an hour under late data with bounded memory

Hard · watermarks · late-data · quantile-sketch · conditional-write

Metering ingest reads 256 partitions at 10,000 to 40,000 events/second. Events carry occurred_at and ingested_at, and during a producer replay the gap between them is hours. Seal each UTC hour once no more than 50 parts per million of that hour's eventual quantity can still arrive, using memory that does not grow with the size of the replay. Define the watermark, the lateness parameter and how you measure it, the structure holding open hours, and the write that performs the seal. State what an idle partition does to your watermark.

Approach

Two clocks, two jobs. Bucket by occurred_at, because that is the hour the customer is billed for, and advance the watermark on ingested_at, because that is what the fold has consumed and what source_max_ingested_at records. Conflating them is what makes late data invisible.
The global watermark is the min over partitions of each partition's committed ingested_at, not the max: the fold is trustworthy only as far as the slowest partition. The consequence is that one idle partition pins the watermark forever and nothing seals, so an idle partition must promote its watermark to wall clock after a stated idle timeout, and that timeout becomes a correctness parameter, because a partition that is slow rather than idle gets sealed past.
Choose the lateness L from the measured distribution of ingested_at - occurred_at, weighted by quantity rather than by event count. The target is 50 ppm of the hour's quantity, and a replay is rare in events while carrying disproportionate mass, so an event-weighted quantile picks an L that is comfortably wrong at exactly the moment it matters.
Measure that quantile in bounded memory. A Greenwald-Khanna summary gives epsilon-approximate quantiles in O((1/epsilon) log(epsilon n)) space; a t-digest costs more per merge but has relative error that tightens at the tails, which is the half of the distribution you are reading at p99.99. Keep a separate summary per tenant class, because one tenant's batch importer is not the population.
Hold open hours in a min-heap keyed by hour_start. When the watermark advances, pop every hour with hour_end + L < W and seal it: O(log H_open) per advance and O(1) amortised per event to touch its bucket. Memory is open hours multiplied by distinct (tenant, workspace, sku) keys, so cap the number of simultaneously open hours and spill the oldest into usage_rollup_hourly as status='open' with a revision bump. While an hour is open the row is upsertable, so the store is your overflow.
The seal itself is a conditional write: update ... set status='sealed', sealed_at=now() where status='open' returning .... Two sealers race on every restart, and the loser must see zero rows and stop rather than write a second value. After the seal, an event for that hour is not an upsert but an adjustment, and source_max_ingested_at is what proves it arrived afterwards.

Worked solution (40 min)

Replay a day of events with a synthetic lateness distribution: 99.9% under two minutes, plus a 0.05% tail at four to six hours that carries 3% of total quantity.
Compute the p99.99 lateness two ways, event-weighted and quantity-weighted, and put the two numbers side by side.
Implement the min-heap of open hours with the watermark as the min over 256 partitions, then stall one partition for 20 minutes and observe what seals.
Set the idle-partition timeout to 60 seconds, repeat the stall, and measure how much quantity arrives after the seal.
Attempt the seal from two workers at once and confirm the conditional update lets exactly one through.

Expected result: The quantity-weighted p99.99 is hours larger than the event-weighted one. Choosing L from the event-weighted number lets roughly the tail's 3% of quantity land after the seal, 600 times the 50 ppm target. With the min watermark and no idle timeout, the stalled partition blocks all sealing; with a 60-second timeout, the stall is sealed past and its events arrive late.

Verify it yourself

Post-seal quantity as a fraction of the hour's total is at or below 50 ppm at the chosen L, measured rather than assumed.
The second sealer's update reports zero rows affected and writes nothing.
Heap size equals the number of open hours and does not grow with the replay's event count.

Follow-up

A replay starts during the sealing window for a period you are about to close. What do you do, and what is the customer-visible consequence of each option?
Your measured quantity-weighted p99.99 lateness is six hours and the invoice must be issued at 02:00 UTC on the first. How do you reconcile those two numbers?
How would you detect that L has drifted before it costs you an hour's quantity?

Migrate a live partitioned event table without blocking ingest

Hard · online migration · ddl locks · expand and contract · partitioning

usage_event is range-partitioned daily on ingested_at, holds roughly 250M rows per day across 400 live partitions, and is written at 10-40k rows/second. Two changes are required: quantity must move from double precision to numeric(20,6), and a new environment column must become NOT NULL with a default of 'production'. Ingest cannot stop. Give the ordered plan, naming for each step the lock it takes, what that lock blocks, and roughly how long it is held. Identify the one step that cannot be rolled back cleanly once traffic depends on it.

Approach

Classify the two changes before planning anything. Adding a column with a non-volatile default has been metadata-only since PostgreSQL 11, so it is cheap. Changing double precision to numeric is not binary-coercible, so alter column ... type rewrites every partition under ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and rebuilds its indexes; on this volume that is hours of blocked ingest and is simply not an option, which is why the plan is expand-and-contract rather than one statement.
Expand: add quantity_numeric numeric(20,6) and environment with its default on the parent. Both are catalogue-only but both take a brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE that cascades to partitions, so run each with lock_timeout set to a second or two and retry on failure. A queued ACCESS EXCLUSIVE request blocks every reader behind it, which is how a metadata-only change turns into an outage.
Dual-write: deploy producer code that populates both columns on every insert, and leave it running before anything reads the new column. This is the step that cannot be reverted cleanly. Once readers depend on quantity_numeric, reverting the writer leaves rows with a null there, and the gap is only discoverable by re-reading the old column, which the readers have stopped doing.
Backfill older partitions in batches keyed on the primary key, oldest first, committing every few thousand rows with a pause between batches, and skipping the partition still receiving writes until it rotates. Each batch is an ordinary UPDATE taking row locks only. The cost is bloat and WAL rather than blocking, so watch dead tuples and let autovacuum keep pace instead of wrapping 400 partitions in one transaction.
Make NOT NULL cheap with the three-step form: add constraint ... check (environment is not null) not valid (brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE, no scan), then validate constraint (SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, scans while reads and writes continue), then set not null, which from PostgreSQL 12 uses the validated check and skips its own full scan. Do this per partition, then on the parent.
Switch and contract: move reads to the new column behind a flag, verify over a full period that both columns agree on freshly written rows, drop the old column (metadata-only), and only then remove the dual-write. Any index on the new column goes on with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY per partition, since CIC is not supported on a partitioned parent: create the parent index with ONLY, build each child concurrently, then ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION until the parent index becomes valid.

Worked solution (45 min)

On a scratch cluster, build 10 partitions of 2M rows each and run a writer at a few thousand inserts/second.
Run the naive type change and measure how long writes stall and how far ingest lag grows before killing it.
Run the expand step with lock_timeout = '2s' while the writer runs, and observe a clean lock timeout and retry instead of a pile-up of blocked readers.
Backfill in 5k-row batches and chart dead tuples and WAL generated per batch.
Run the not-valid, validate, set-not-null sequence and confirm from pg_stat_activity and timings that nothing held an exclusive lock through a full scan.
Add an index with CIC per partition plus ATTACH PARTITION and confirm the parent index reports valid only after the last attach.

Expected result: An ordered expand, dual-write, backfill, switch, contract plan with the lock named per step: metadata-only ADD COLUMN under a brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE taken with lock_timeout; batched UPDATE backfill under row locks; CHECK NOT VALID, then VALIDATE under SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, then SET NOT NULL; CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY per partition with ATTACH PARTITION; and the dual-write-to-read switch identified as the step that cannot be reverted cleanly.

Verify it yourself

No step in the plan holds ACCESS EXCLUSIVE for longer than the configured lock_timeout.
The writer's error rate stays at zero through the rehearsal apart from the deliberate lock timeout.
After VALIDATE, SET NOT NULL completes in milliseconds on a table where the naive form scanned every row.
Freshly written rows agree on both columns for a full verification period before the old column is dropped.

Follow-up

A CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails halfway through the partition list. What state is the table in, how do you detect it, and what do you run?
The producer computes quantity itself. What happens to a request already in flight when the dual-write deploy lands, and does it matter?
Give two queries that prove the backfill is complete: one cheap enough to run every minute, one authoritative.

Paginate a tenant's delivery export without skipping rows

Easy · keyset pagination · indexing · multi-tenancy

A customer exports webhook_delivery: delivery_id (bigint identity), subscription_id, tenant_id, event_id, status, attempt_count, next_attempt_at, created_at, delivered_at, updated_at. The endpoint runs select ... where tenant_id = $1 order by created_at desc limit 100 offset $2, and customers report rows missing from exports taken while new deliveries are being inserted. Write the replacement query and the index that supports it, paging a tenant's deliveries newest first at constant cost per page. State why updated_at cannot be the cursor column.

Approach

Name the defect precisely. OFFSET is a position in a result set that is recomputed on every request, so a row inserted ahead of the window shifts everything back by one and the next page starts after a row the client never received. Nothing errors and no identifier gap appears, so the loss is silent.
Replace the position with a value predicate over a stable, unique, indexed ordering: where tenant_id = $1 and (created_at, delivery_id) < ($2, $3) order by created_at desc, delivery_id desc limit 100. The row comparison is load-bearing: created_at alone is not unique, so ties straddling a page boundary are dropped or repeated, which is the same bug in a smaller window.
Index (tenant_id, created_at, delivery_id). PostgreSQL scans a btree in either direction, so an all-DESC ORDER BY is served by an ASC index read backwards and no DESC modifiers are needed; they only matter when the ORDER BY mixes directions. Confirm the plan has no Sort node above the index scan, or the LIMIT stops being an early exit.
Price both forms: keyset is one index descent plus 100 adjacent leaf entries per page, constant regardless of depth, while OFFSET still produces and discards every skipped row, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table goes from milliseconds to seconds.
Rule out updated_at as the cursor from the precondition, not from taste: a cursor column must never change value for a row already paged past. updated_at moves on every delivery attempt, so a row the client already emitted re-enters a later page and is exported twice. created_at and delivery_id are immutable, which is the whole qualification.

Follow-up

The client wants a snapshot as of one instant rather than a live tail. Compare a repeatable-read transaction held open, an added created_at <= $snapshot bound, and a materialised export table.
A retention job deletes deliveries older than 90 days. What does a client mid-walk see, and does keyset pagination help at all?
The customer wants to resume an export from yesterday's last cursor. What must be true of the cursor for that to be safe?

What are the key differences between various cloud service models?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.

Follow-up

What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

Explain the significance of Linux commands in troubleshooting system issues.

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?

Specify webhook signature verification a customer can implement

Easy · webhooks · hmac · replay protection

The webhook-delivery service signs each payload before POSTing it to a customer endpoint. Write the signature specification a customer implements in their own language: the header format, exactly which bytes are signed, the algorithm, how replay is bounded, and how a signing secret rotates without a delivery gap. Then write the verification steps the customer performs, in order, including what they compare and what they return on failure. Constraint: most customers reach for their web framework's parsed JSON body by default. Deliverable: the spec section plus reference pseudocode.

Approach

Sign the concatenation of the timestamp and the raw body, t + "." + body, and emit a header of the form t=<unix seconds>,v1=<hex>. The timestamp has to be inside the MAC, or an attacker re-stamps a captured body and the tolerance window buys nothing.
Require the raw request bytes. A framework that parses JSON and re-serialises it changes key order, whitespace and number formatting, so the spec must tell the customer to capture the body before the parser runs and give the middleware note for each common framework.
Use HMAC-SHA256, not sha256(secret || body): SHA-256 is a Merkle-Damgard construction, so the naive form admits length extension. Require a constant-time comparison as well, since a short-circuiting byte compare leaks the expected prefix under repeated probing.
Bound replay in two layers: reject when |now - t| exceeds a stated tolerance such as 300 seconds, then deduplicate on the event identifier header. The tolerance is what makes the customer's dedup store finite rather than unbounded.
Rotate by allowing two live secrets and emitting both signatures in one header (v1=<old>,v1=<new>); the customer accepts if any candidate matches, so neither side needs an instantaneous cutover. A failed verification returns 400 and the body is not processed.

Worked solution (15 min)

Write the header grammar and one real example line with a plausible timestamp and hex digest.
Write the signed string construction explicitly as a byte concatenation, and add the sentence telling the customer where in their framework to obtain the raw body.
Write the five verification steps in order: extract t and candidates, check the tolerance, recompute the HMAC over t + '.' + raw body, compare in constant time against each candidate, then deduplicate on the event identifier.
Add the rotation paragraph: two active secrets, both signatures sent, overlap window stated in the dashboard.
State the failure response and the fact that the payload is not processed, plus what the sender does with that 400.

Expected result: A spec where the signed input is the timestamp joined to the exact raw bytes, the algorithm is HMAC-SHA256 compared in constant time, replay is bounded by a stated tolerance plus event-id deduplication, and rotation is an overlap of two accepted signatures rather than a cutover.

Verify it yourself

The timestamp is inside the signed string, not merely sent alongside it.
The spec names raw bytes and says where the customer gets them before parsing.
Rotation requires no coordinated instant on either side.
The reason for HMAC over sha256(secret || body) is stated as length extension, not as a preference.

Follow-up

A customer's verification passes locally and fails in production behind a proxy that re-encodes the response body. Where do you look first?
Why sign with a per-endpoint secret rather than the tenant's API key?

Metering partition crash-loops and the sealing watermark freezes

Medium · poison message · at-least-once · dead-letter queue

One metering-ingest partition has stopped advancing. Lag grows linearly, the consumer restarts about every 40 seconds, and the same offset appears in every startup log while other partitions stay healthy. Events are committed in batches of a few thousand and the acknowledgement follows the commit. Sealing is six hours away and source_max_ingested_at for that partition's tenants is frozen. Give an ordered checklist, a containment action available within minutes, and the durable fix, saying what each does to exactly-once accounting.

Approach

Distinguish a poison record from a capacity problem in one measurement: compare the offset and the exception across restarts. An identical pair every time is deterministic failure on one record, whereas a throughput problem still advances the offset between crashes.
Read the record from a separate consumer group so the bytes can be inspected without perturbing the stuck consumer, then classify the defect: schema violation, a quantity failing the non-negative check, a null workspace, an unmappable SKU enum, or a payload past a size limit. That classification decides whether this is a producer bug or a missing consumer guard.
Account for batch granularity before acting. With commits of a few thousand, one bad record fails thousands of good ones, so the blast radius is the batch. Halve the batch around the offset to isolate the record, or move to per-record error isolation so the radius becomes the record.
Contain by diverting that record to a dead-letter store with its raw bytes and offset, then resume. This is safe here precisely because the acknowledgement follows the commit: the good records from the failed batch are re-consumed and absorbed by the uniqueness check on (tenant_id, idempotency_key) rather than counted twice.
Make the fix durable with per-record error isolation, a bounded poison counter, and an alert on dead-letter rate rather than on lag alone, since lag only reveals this after the sealing margin has already been eaten.
Check the horizon before replaying anything. The unique index lives on a daily-partitioned table and therefore includes the partition key, so it deduplicates within a day only; a replay landing on a later ingest day needs the separate dedup store or it double-counts into a tenant's bill.

Follow-up

Move the acknowledgement before the commit and describe exactly what is lost and what is duplicated in each of the two crash windows.
Sealing is in six hours and the partition will not drain in time. What do you seal on, and what does the invoice have to record so the difference is explainable later?
A producer replays two weeks of events next month. Which part of your fix stops holding, and what is the dedup horizon you would actually configure?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone fluent in a dynamic language who has shipped real work but has never had to say what the runtime is doing underneath. The week is built on measuring and deliberately breaking things, because the questions that expose this background are the ones where the interviewer asks why a second time.

Day 1 — Measure before reasoning

Take a slow piece of your own code, write down in advance where you believe the time goes, then profile it and record how wrong the guess was. The cost is usually an allocation you did not notice or an accidental quadratic membership test.
Replace one list membership test inside a loop with a set and measure at a thousand, ten thousand and a hundred thousand elements, confirming the shape of the curve rather than only that it got faster.
Write down the three quantities you can now measure instead of assert: wall time, peak memory, and call count for the function you suspected.

Deliverable: A before-and-after profile of real code plus a written note on the size of the gap between the guess and the measurement.

Day 2 — References, copies, and the bugs they produce

Write the function with a mutable default argument, call it three times, and explain the accumulating result: the default is evaluated once when the function is defined, so every call shares one object.
Build a nested structure, take a shallow copy, mutate an inner element, and show that both views changed, because a shallow copy duplicates the container and not the elements. Then fix it with a deep copy and state the cost you just accepted.
Write two functions, one mutating its argument in place and one rebinding the local name, and predict the caller's view of each before running it. That single distinction produces most of the bugs that pass their tests.

Deliverable: Three small programs whose output you predicted correctly before running, each with a one-line statement of the rule underneath.

Day 3 — Types, once, in a language that checks them

Port one module you have already written, roughly a hundred lines, into a statically typed language, and record every place the compiler demanded an answer your original had left implicit: a value that can be absent, a numeric width, a case never handled.
Write the same signature in both languages and state what the static one guarantees before the program runs and what it does not, since it will not save you from a wrong algorithm or an index out of range.
Write the difference between an interface satisfied by declaration and one satisfied structurally, with one case each where the other approach would miss the mistake.

Deliverable: One module in two languages plus a list of the questions the type checker forced you to answer.

Day 4 — Concurrency, starting with what actually runs at the same time

Run the same CPU-bound function across four threads and four processes and measure both. Under the default CPython build the threaded version will not speed up, because only one thread executes bytecode at a time; the process version will. Check which build you are on first, since free-threaded builds remove that lock and change the result.
Then run a blocking I/O workload across four threads and measure it speeding up, because the interpreter releases that lock around blocking calls, which is why treating threads as useless is wrong as a general claim.
Build the lost update: two threads each incrementing a shared counter a hundred thousand times, and show a final value below the expected sum, because an increment is a load, an add and a store and the thread can be suspended between them. Fix it with a lock and then measure what the lock costs.

Deliverable: Three measurements, threads against processes on CPU work, threads on I/O work, and a demonstrated lost update, each with the mechanism written underneath.

Day 5 — Debugging as a procedure rather than an instinct

Work one real failure as a bisection: find a revision or an input size where it is good and one where it is bad, halve repeatedly, and state the two assumptions bisection needs, that the property changes exactly once across the range and that the test is reliable.
Minimise one failing input to the smallest version that still fails, and record how many rounds it took.
Keep a hypothesis log for one bug in three columns, what I believe, what would disprove it, what I observed, and stop yourself the first time you are about to change two things at once.

Deliverable: One bug worked to root cause with a written hypothesis log and a minimised reproducing input.

Day 6 — Tests that catch the bug you are about to write

Implement an LRU cache with a capacity bound, then write the three test cases that would catch an off-by-one in eviction: insert exactly capacity items and assert nothing was evicted, insert one more and assert the least recently used key is the one gone, and read an old key just before that insert so the eviction victim changes.
Add a property test comparing your implementation against a deliberately slow reference, an ordered list scanned linearly, over a few thousand random operation sequences, because a slow reference finds the cases you would not have thought to write.
Write one numeric test that fails under exact equality and passes with a tolerance, and state why the tolerance has to be relative rather than absolute once the magnitudes grow.

Deliverable: An LRU implementation with three boundary tests, one property test against a slow reference, and one tolerance-based numeric test.

Day 7 — Debug something broken, out loud

Have someone plant three defects in a two-hundred-line program, an off-by-one, a shared mutable state bug, and a wrong error-handling path, then find them while narrating, under a fixed rule: state the hypothesis before touching anything.
Time each one and record which tool found it, reading, a printed value, a debugger, or a test, because the question asked in interviews is how you would find it rather than what it was.
Write the sentence you will use when you do not yet know the cause, one that names the next measurement instead of offering a guess.

Deliverable: A recorded debugging session with time-to-find per defect and the method that found each.

Scope is read from what you decided

Team size, service count and tickets closed say very little. Seniority shows in the decision you owned: what you chose not to build, which constraint you traded away, whose objection you had to resolve before anything could move. A large project where you executed someone else's plan is a small story.

How do you approach a scenario where you face a technical roadblock you haven't encountered before?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
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?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

Tell me about yourself and your academic or project background.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
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?

Reverse a webhook ordering decision after measuring its cost

Medium · reversing decisions · head-of-line blocking · at-least-once · api contracts

You argued for strict per-subscription ordering in webhook-delivery, which means one in-flight attempt per subscription. It shipped. Three months later a single unresponsive endpoint holds one subscription's queue at a six-hour backlog, and two customers report events arriving out of order anyway once their own retries are counted. Describe a decision you reversed: what you originally optimised for, the measurement that changed your mind, what the reversal cost in engineering time and customer change, and how you told the people who had already built on the original guarantee.

Approach

State the original decision as a trade you made knowingly. Ordering across a network requires a single in-flight attempt per subscription, and its price is head-of-line blocking whenever one endpoint is slow. 'We priced it wrong' is a much stronger opening than 'we did not realise', and it is usually the true one.
Bring the measurement that flipped it, not the anecdote: backlog age at the ninety-ninth percentile per subscription, the share of subscriptions where one slow endpoint gated an otherwise healthy queue, and the delivery throughput lost to serialisation. A reversal justified by complaints is indistinguishable from a reversal justified by fatigue.
Name what you learned about the guarantee itself, which is the engineering content of this story. At-least-once delivery means a retried event already arrives after newer ones and the consumer already must be idempotent, so a guarantee the customer has to defend against anyway was never worth what it cost to provide.
Describe the migration, because reversing a published contract is the hard half and the part candidates skip. Parallel attempts behind a per-subscription flag, a monotonically increasing sequence number added to the envelope so order-sensitive consumers can sort or discard, documentation that states at-least-once and unordered in those words, and a deprecation measured in quarters because the client is a pinned SDK inside a build pipeline you cannot see or redeploy.
Give the cost in the two currencies that matter: engineer-weeks, and how many customers had to change code. Then say who you told before it shipped rather than in a changelog afterwards, and which large customer you left on the old behaviour and for how long.
Close with the signal you now weight differently, stated as something you would do earlier next time: measuring the blocking cost on the slowest decile of endpoints before committing to the guarantee, rather than after a customer noticed.

Follow-up

A customer insists they need ordering. What do you offer them that is not global serialisation?
How did you choose the deprecation window given that you cannot see or redeploy the clients?
What would have to be true for you to reverse back?