Interview guides · Banco Sabadell

Banco Sabadell Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist interview prep for Banco Sabadell: original practice on experiment design, SQL and metric reasoning, with worked solutions.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Banco Sabadell, you are at the intersection of advanced analytics and the evolving landscape of European financial services. You will be tasked with transforming raw financial data into strategic insights that drive the bank’s core operations, including credit risk management, mortgage assessment, and sophisticated product recommendation engines. Your work directly influences how Banco Sabadell interacts with its clients and manages its portfolio, making this a high-impact, visibility-heavy role.

SQL is seldom the hardest round and is often the one that eliminates people. The working bar is usually window functions, correct deduplication, and joins that do not silently fan out rows, rather than obscure syntax.

Focus areas

Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD
Report only matured cohorts for loss metrics

Overview

The environment is one of technical rigor mixed with business pragmatism. You will not only build models but also articulate their value to stakeholders, from department directors to technical peers. Whether you are addressing complex issues like loan delinquency or optimizing customer-facing financial systems, you are expected to bridge the gap between abstract data science methodologies and concrete, bottom-line business outcomes.

The team is relatively lean and highly collaborative. Expect to interact with both leadership and fellow data scientists throughout the interview process, emphasizing the need for both technical depth and clear, business-oriented communication.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

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.

Averaging delinquency across a book that is growing

A loan three months old cannot be 90 days past due, so a portfolio with many recent originations reports a low blended 90+ rate purely from age mix. The blended rate falls fastest exactly when originations grow fastest, which is precisely when credit quality most needs watching, so the metric moves in the reassuring direction during the riskiest period. Only comparisons at equal months on book are valid, which is what a vintage or roll-rate view enforces.

Stopping an experiment the moment it crosses significance

Fix the sample size or duration before launch, or use a method built for continuous monitoring such as a sequential test, always-valid confidence intervals, or group-sequential boundaries. Repeatedly checking a fixed-horizon p-value against 0.05 pushes the real false-positive rate well above 5 percent.

Generalising beyond the population the sample actually supports

State the frame the sample was drawn from and where it diverges from the population you want to talk about: time window, platform, geography, opt-in. If a group is excluded from the frame, either weight to known margins or narrow the claim rather than quietly extending it.

Questions & practice

If you notice a sudden drop in model performance for a specific customer segment, what is your diagnostic process?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

How do you balance model accuracy with regulatory transparency in credit scoring?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
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 trade-offs between different classification algorithms in the context of fraud detection.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

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?

Write integrity checks for the authorization and settlement lifecycle

Easy · data quality · minor units · fx reconciliation

You are given fct_payment_authorization as a pandas DataFrame with auth_id, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency and settlement_fx_rate. Write a function returning one row per integrity check with the check name, failing row count, failing share and up to five example auth_id values. Cover at least six checks, one of which reconciles captured_amount_minor against settlement_amount_minor through settlement_fx_rate. Partial capture, zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture are all legitimate and must not be flagged.

Approach

Separate contract violations from observations before writing any code: an approved row carrying a decline_reason_code is structurally impossible, while a capture two days after requested_at is merely slow and belongs in a different severity tier.
Express each check as a boolean mask over the whole frame and collect the masks in a dict, so the summary table is one comprehension over mask.sum() rather than a row loop.
For the reconciliation, leave minor units before comparing: expected = captured_amount_minor / 10exponent[transaction_currency] * settlement_fx_rate * 10exponent[settlement_currency]. Build the exponent table covering zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies instead of assuming two everywhere.
Guard the legitimate cases explicitly so each mask fires only on the genuine contradiction: captured_amount_minor below amount_minor is partial capture, amount_minor of zero on an approved row is account verification, a null captured_at on a declined row is correct.
Sort the output by failing share times a stated severity weight, because a check firing on 0.01 percent of rows can still be the one that breaks a ledger reconciliation.

Worked solution (25 min)

Assert auth_id is unique, then build a currency exponent lookup that includes the zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies present in the data.
Define masks for: approved with non-null decline_reason_code; declined with non-null captured_at; captured_amount_minor above amount_minor with parent_auth_id null; captured_at before requested_at; settled_at before captured_at; is_reversal true with parent_auth_id null; settlement_currency differing from transaction_currency while settlement_fx_rate is null.
Add the exponent-aware reconciliation mask with a tolerance of one minor unit plus a small relative term.
Assemble a frame of check_name, n_failing, pct_failing and up to five sample auth_id values, ordered by severity then share.
Read five flagged rows per check by hand and confirm each is genuinely contradictory before reporting any counts.

Expected result: A DataFrame of at least eight rows, one per check, each with n_failing, pct_failing and example auth_id values. The reconciliation check should fire on a whole currency at once rather than on scattered rows, because an exponent error is systematic while an FX error is not.

Verify it yourself

Every mask returns false on three hand-constructed legitimate rows: a partial capture, a zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture.
Each pct_failing uses the denominator that check actually applies to, with reversals and verifications excluded where they are out of scope.
The reconciliation residual is centred at zero with spread under one minor unit; residuals clustered at exactly 100x or 0.01x mean an exponent is wrong, not a rate.

Follow-up

Which of these would you run as a blocking pipeline assertion and which as a monitored metric, and why?
The FX check fails on 3 percent of rows, all in one settlement currency. How do you decide between a data bug and a rounding convention?
How would you detect that a currency's minor-unit exponent is wrong in your reference table, using only the transaction data?

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.

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?

Accident-quarter loss ratio on earned rather than written premium

Hard · loss ratio · earned vs written · development age

From fct_policy_period_monthly, compute the accident-quarter loss ratio by product_line: incurred losses, being paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor, over earned_premium_minor for the same accident quarter. State explicitly whether loss_adjustment_expense_minor is included and apply that choice consistently. Also output the same ratio computed on written_premium_minor so the two can be compared. The table holds current values with no valuation-date snapshot. Say in one line which comparison this schema cannot support and what you would need to support it.

Approach

Derive the accident quarter from as_of_month with date_trunc, and note that the table already attributes losses to the month of the loss event while earning premium pro rata into the same month, which is what makes the two sides comparable at all.
Aggregate earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor and the three loss components to product_line and accident quarter in one pass, keeping loss adjustment expense as its own column so the inclusion choice is a final-select decision rather than something buried in a CTE.
Compute both ratios side by side and a third column for their difference, because the size and sign of that difference is a direct read on whether the book grew or shrank in the quarter.
State the limitation plainly: every row carries today's reserve estimate, so each accident quarter is observed at a different development age and a cross-quarter comparison mixes development with underwriting. A fixed development age needs a valuation-date dimension, that is one row per accident period per valuation, which this table does not have.
Guard against the mirror-image error on the numerator by confirming ibnr_reserve_minor is non-zero on recent quarters; if it is null or zero there, the recent periods are understated twice over and the series is not usable.

Worked solution (40 min)

CTE quarterly: group fct_policy_period_monthly by product_line and date_trunc('quarter', as_of_month), summing earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor and loss_adjustment_expense_minor.
Final SELECT: build incurred_minor as the three loss components plus the LAE column, with the LAE inclusion written as a named expression so the choice is visible on the page.
Emit loss_ratio_earned and loss_ratio_written, both cast to numeric, plus their difference and the written-to-earned premium ratio.
Order by product_line and accident quarter, and append the one-line note about the missing valuation dimension to the query as a comment.

Expected result: One row per product_line and accident quarter with earned and written premium, incurred losses, both ratios and their difference. In quarters where written premium exceeds earned, loss_ratio_written is strictly below loss_ratio_earned, and the gap widens with the growth rate.

Verify it yourself

For a mature product line with flat volume, summed earned premium over a full policy term is close to summed written premium, so the two ratios converge there.
The sign of loss_ratio_earned minus loss_ratio_written matches the sign of written premium minus earned premium in every quarter, which is an arithmetic identity and not a data finding.
Recent accident quarters have non-zero ibnr_reserve_minor; a zero there means the numerator is missing its tail and the ratio is understated.
Within a quarter, loss_ratio_earned divided by loss_ratio_written equals written_premium_minor divided by earned_premium_minor exactly, because both ratios share one numerator. Any deviation means the LAE term was built into one ratio and not the other, which is the real test that the inclusion choice was applied consistently.
Recomputing with LAE excluded scales each quarter's ratio by incurred_minor / (incurred_minor + lae_minor). That factor is not constant across quarters unless LAE happens to be booked as a fixed fraction of incurred losses, so a uniform shift is evidence about how LAE is loaded, not evidence that the query is self-consistent — use the previous check for that.

Follow-up

Written premium exceeds earned premium by 18 percent this quarter and by 3 percent two years ago. What happened to the book, and what does it do to each ratio?
How would you build a development triangle from a valuation-dated version of this table, and what would you use the chain-ladder factors for?
Statutory presentation conventionally takes the expense ratio on written premium while the loss ratio uses earned. How do you avoid a combined ratio that quietly mixes the two bases?

What features would you prioritize in a system designed to recommend financial products to existing customers?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

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?

Design an authorization approval rate a team cannot game

Easy · approval rate · metric gaming · mix shift

A payments team is given authorization approval rate as its quarterly target, defined as approved authorizations over all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. Using auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, channel, issuer_country and requested_at, list three ways the team can raise that number without a single additional customer purchase succeeding. Then write the definition you would put on the dashboard instead, with its exclusions, and name the one guardrail you would always read beside it.

Approach

Enumerate the rows in the table that are not purchases: zero-amount account verifications, reversals (is_reversal = true), incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null) and merchant retries of a declined attempt. Each is a lever on the numerator or the denominator that no customer would ever notice.
Name the mix levers. Recurring and card-present traffic approve at higher rates than ecommerce and cross-border, so routing changes or a marketing push into an easy channel move the blended rate with no change in decisioning quality at all.
Work the retry arithmetic rather than asserting it. A declined purchase that is retried three times and succeeds on the fourth contributes one approval and four denominator rows, which is below a healthy blended rate, so suppressing retries raises the published number while some purchases that would have succeeded on a retry now simply fail.
Replace the definition: dollar-weighted, retry chains collapsed to a single attempt per (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) within a 15-minute window, excluding reversals, zero-amount verifications and incremental authorizations, with all amounts converted into one reporting currency before summing because amount_minor is in the minor unit of transaction_currency and that unit is not always two decimals. Cut by channel and issuer_country so mix shift shows up as mix shift.
Guardrail: net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months with at least 120 days of dispute maturity. The fastest way to approve more is to decline less risk, and that bill arrives two to four months later.

Worked solution (25 min)

Compute the naive rate for one week: approved rows over all rows.
Apply the exclusions one at a time (zero-amount, is_reversal, parent_auth_id not null), recording the rate after each, so you can say what each row type was worth to the headline number.
Add a retry-collapsing CTE keyed on (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) over a 15-minute window, keeping the last attempt in each chain, and recompute.
Recompute dollar-weighted in a single reporting currency, then split by channel and issuer_country.
Write the final one-line definition with its exclusions, plus the guardrail sentence.

Expected result: Four rates for the same week (naive count, count after exclusions, count after retry collapsing, dollar-weighted after both), with the largest single gap attributed to a named row type, and a published definition that states every exclusion and the currency it reports in.

Verify it yourself

Excluding zero-amount verifications should lower the rate, since those rows approve at a higher rate than purchases. If it raises the rate, confirm that the amount_minor = 0 filter is not also catching rows with a null amount.
Collapsing retry chains raises the rate and shrinks the denominator. The numerator falls only by the number of chains that contained more than one approval.
Declines skew toward higher-value, cross-border and card-not-present transactions, so expect the dollar-weighted rate to sit below the count-weighted one. If it sits above, check for amounts summed across currencies before believing it.

Follow-up

The blended rate is flat but ecommerce cross-border fell 200 basis points. How do you present that?
Why weight by amount rather than by count, and when does the weighted version mislead?
Your 15-minute retry window merges two genuine purchases of the same amount at the same merchant. How would you bound that error?

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.

Stories where someone disagreed with you

Have two ready. In one, the data was on your side and you had to move someone who outranked you. In the other, the pushback was correct and you changed position. The second is the harder story and it lands better, because it shows you separate being right from being attached to an answer. Name the person's actual objection.

Allocate one analyst-week across three competing risk requests

Medium · prioritisation · decision deadlines · stakeholder negotiation

Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.

Approach

Score each request on the decision it unblocks rather than on effort or on how loudly it arrived: what changes if it is late, and is that change reversible.
Separate deadline from value. The nine-day renewal is a hard, irreversible date with a bounded prize; the six-week cutoff has slack but a much larger downside if it ships unmeasured; the reserving number has no date but feeds external reporting, which is its own kind of hard.
Hunt for the cheap partial in each: a decline teardown restricted to the top merchants by declined value usually answers the contract question at a fraction of the full cut.
Sequence by hard date first, then by largest irreversible downside, and deliver the trade-off to all three sponsors in one message rather than three, so nobody negotiates privately against a version you told someone else.
Name what is dropped and who now owns that consequence, in writing, so the trade-off is visible rather than silently absorbed by you.

Follow-up

The credit sponsor escalates to your manager. What do you change, and what do you refuse to change?
How would you make this allocation reproducible so the next contested week is a rule application rather than a negotiation?

State honestly what your cutoff change actually contributed

Hard · impact attribution · swap set · counterfactual

Six months ago your recommendation moved a credit cutoff, using fct_loan_application and fct_loan_performance_monthly. Since then approval rate rose four points and the 12-month vintage 90-plus rate on affected cohorts is flat. In the same window the bureau changed a score attribute, marketing shifted channel mix toward broker, and the internal funding rate moved. Your performance review asks for impact in currency terms. Give the number you would stand behind, the counterfactual it rests on, and the part of the observed movement you would not claim.

Approach

Define the counterfactual before computing anything: the claim is not what happened after the change, it is what would have happened had the old cutoff scored the same applications, which means replaying the old threshold on the post-change population.
Build the swap set: applications the new cutoff approves that the old one declined, applications the old one approved that the new one declines, and everyone else held out as unaffected. Only the swap groups carry your effect. Note that the swap-out group has no outcome under the new rule, because those loans were never funded, so its forgone margin must be estimated from matched pre-change approvals rather than observed.
Price each swap group at months_on_book equal to 12 on the measure the cutoff was meant to move: interest and fees collected, minus net charge-offs, minus funding cost at the internal transfer rate.
Strip the confounders explicitly. Cohorts affected by the bureau attribute change are either recomputed on the old attribute or excluded; channel mix is held fixed by reweighting to the pre-change mix; funding cost is charged at the rate in force each month rather than one blended average.
State the residual you will not claim, with its size, and give a range rather than a point wherever cohorts have not yet reached 12 months on book.

Follow-up

The swap-in group is only 6 percent of applications. How does that change the way you present the number, and to whom?
What would you have needed to set up at launch to make this attribution clean, and why was a randomised band around the cutoff not used?

Turn a one-line fraud-number request into a scoped brief

Easy · scoping · metric definition · denominators

A stakeholder messages: what is our fraud rate, and is it going up? You have fct_payment_authorization, fct_card_dispute and dim_customer. At least four defensible answers exist: count-weighted or value-weighted, attributed to the transaction month or to the dispute filing month, and gross or net of recoveries and successful representments. You get one reply before someone else produces an uncaveated number. Write that reply: the clarifying questions you ask, the single default you will produce if nobody answers, and what the default excludes.

Approach

Establish the decision behind the question first, because a risk-rule change, a board number and a merchant contract negotiation need different denominators, and asking which one is not stalling.
Offer a short menu rather than an open question: a stakeholder can choose between two named options but cannot specify a denominator from scratch.
Commit to a default so the reply is useful even if nobody answers, for example net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, attributed to the requested_at month, matured months only.
State the exclusions in the same breath as the default: non-fraud dispute categories, transaction months with less than 120 days of maturity, and first-party abuse that arrives coded as consumer_dispute.
Give a delivery time for the default and a longer one for the fuller cut, so the choice between them carries a visible cost.

Follow-up

They come back wanting it by merchant for a contract negotiation. What changes in the definition and in the maturity rule?
How would you separate first-party abuse from third-party fraud in this data, and what would you refuse to conclude from the split?