Interview guides · Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance

Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Causal inference drills for Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance data scientist prep: diff-in-diff, matching, instruments, and the limits of observed data.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance, you play a pivotal role in leveraging data to drive strategic decision-making and enhance business outcomes. Your work not only contributes to the development of innovative insurance products but also ensures that the company's operations are efficient and data-driven. In this capacity, you'll be engaging with complex datasets and applying advanced analytical techniques to inform risk assessments, pricing strategies, and customer insights.

Most of the loop measures decision-making under uncertainty rather than recall. You are scored on whether you state your assumptions, commit to an estimate you can defend, and say explicitly what evidence would change it.

Focus areas

Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost

Overview

The impact of your role extends beyond analytical tasks; you will collaborate with cross-functional teams to translate data findings into actionable strategies that directly influence product offerings and client satisfaction. Engaging in projects that involve predictive modeling, machine learning, and risk modeling, you will help the organization navigate the complexities of the insurance landscape, making your contributions both significant and rewarding. Expect to be at the forefront of transforming data into strategic insights, which is critical for the competitive positioning of.

The Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance interview process

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

Initial Screening

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Technical Assessments

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Interviews with Teams

Rounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.

What to demonstrate

Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options

How to prepare

Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.

Where candidates lose points

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.

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

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

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.

Ignoring interference between units in a marketplace experiment

Ask whether one unit's treatment can change another unit's outcome through shared inventory, a matching pool, a social graph or a common budget. Where it can, randomise at a level that contains the spillover, such as region or time slice, and say explicitly what that costs you in statistical power.

Questions & practice

What metrics do you consider when evaluating a model's performance?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
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.

Follow-up

Where could label leakage enter this setup?
What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?

Can you discuss a machine learning algorithm you frequently use and why?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
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

How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?

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?

Reconcile captured authorizations against the daily settlement total

Easy · reconciliation · currency · rounding

fct_payment_authorization holds captured_amount_minor in transaction_currency, and settlement_amount_minor in settlement_currency with settlement_fx_rate applied at settlement rather than at authorization. The rate is quoted in major units of settlement_currency per major unit of transaction_currency, and dim_currency.minor_unit_exponent carries the ISO 4217 exponent for each code (0, 2 or 3 depending on the currency). Produce a daily reconciliation: for each settled_at date and settlement_currency, return settled_count, total settlement_amount_minor, and the sum of captured_amount_minor converted into settlement minor units. Flag any date and currency pair whose two totals differ by more than one minor unit per settled authorization. Do not sum amounts across currencies anywhere in the output.

Approach

Restrict to rows that actually settled: settled_at is not null and settlement_amount_minor is not null, which is a smaller population than captured rows because a capture can still be in flight.
Truncate settled_at to a date with an explicit time zone so the cut matches the ledger's cut, since settled_at is timestamptz and date_trunc on timestamptz silently uses the session time zone.
Join dim_currency twice, once on transaction_currency and once on settlement_currency, so both exponents are on the row. Minor units are not a common scale: a bare captured_amount_minor * settlement_fx_rate is correct only when the two exponents are equal, and a zero-decimal currency settling into a two-decimal one is wrong by a factor of 100.
Convert per row as ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric / POWER(10::numeric, exp_txn) * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle)) — minor units to major in the transaction currency, apply the major-per-major rate, then back to minor units in the settlement currency. The collapsed form ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle - exp_txn)) is the same expression. Round per row and then sum, not SUM(...) * an average rate, because the rate varies row by row and rounding per row is what the settlement file did.
Group by the settlement date and settlement_currency together, never by date alone, and carry the currency into every output column name or row.
Compare the two totals with a tolerance scaled by settled_count, since per-row rounding accumulates linearly in the number of rows rather than being a fixed constant.

Follow-up

A partial capture means captured_amount_minor is less than amount_minor. Where does that show up in this reconciliation, and where does it not?
On one currency pair the converted total is consistently about one hundredth of the settlement total, on every date, while the other pairs reconcile. Which two columns do you inspect first, and what single change fixes it?
The rate is documented as major-per-major. If a feed started publishing it minor-per-minor instead, which pairs would still reconcile and which would break?
How would you present a total across currencies to a finance partner who has asked for one number?

Vintage ninety-plus rate at twelve months on book

Medium · vintage analysis · window functions · right censoring

From fct_loan_performance_monthly, build a vintage table keyed on origination_month: the share of each cohort that ever reached days_past_due of 90 or more, or charge_off_flag = true, at or before months_on_book = 12. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so for any loan with restructured_flag true, evaluate only the month ends strictly before its first restructured month. Return origination_month, loans_funded, bad_loans and bad_rate. Exclude any cohort that does not yet have a months_on_book = 12 observation for every loan still on book.

Approach

Establish the cohort denominator from the first month end each loan appears at, months_on_book = 0, so a loan is counted once in its origination_month rather than once per monthly row.
Find each loan's first restructured month with MIN(as_of_month_end) FILTER (WHERE restructured_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id), or the equivalent grouped subquery, and keep it null for loans never restructured.
Flag a loan bad if any row with months_on_book <= 12 and as_of_month_end earlier than that first restructured month has days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag = true, which is what 'pre-restructure worst state' means in practice.
Gate maturity by requiring the cohort's newest month end to be at least 12 months after origination_month, and report immature cohorts as incomplete rather than letting them appear at a flattering low rate.
Aggregate to one row per origination_month and read the column downward, not across calendar time, because the whole point is comparing cohorts at equal age.

Worked solution (35 min)

CTE 1: per loan_id, derive origination_month, the first restructured month end, and the maximum months_on_book observed.
CTE 2: join back to the monthly rows, filter to months_on_book <= 12 and to month ends before any restructure, then flag bad with a BOOL_OR.
CTE 3: aggregate to origination_month with COUNT() as loans_funded and COUNT() FILTER (WHERE is_bad) as bad_loans.
Apply the maturity gate and compute bad_rate with a numeric cast.

Expected result: One row per matured origination_month with loans_funded, bad_loans and a bad_rate between 0 and 1. The most recent immature cohorts are absent from the output entirely rather than present with a small bad_rate.

Verify it yourself

SUM(loans_funded) across reported cohorts equals COUNT(DISTINCT loan_id) restricted to those same origination months.
Recomputing without the months_on_book cap raises bad_rate monotonically for every cohort, and raises it most for the oldest, which is the seasoning effect made visible.
No cohort in the output has a maximum months_on_book below 12.

Follow-up

Should a restructure inside 12 months count as bad in its own right? Argue both sides and say what you would actually ship.
A loan that prepaid in full at month 4 never had a chance to go 90 days past due. In or out of the denominator, and why?
The 2025-11 cohort is two points worse at month 12 than its neighbours. What three queries do you run before you call it a credit-quality change?

Can you analyze this dataset and present your findings?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
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?

How do you prioritize your work when faced with multiple deadlines?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?

How would you approach a scenario where sales have drastically decreased in a particular region?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

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

Given a dataset with customer information, how would you identify key segments?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

Follow-up

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

Describe how you would design an experiment to test a new insurance product.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

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

Follow-up

How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
What would you do if you could not randomise at all?

Explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning.

Medium

Approach

Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.

Follow-up

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

Test a referral rule when reviewers are a shared queue

Medium · interference · switchback · cluster randomisation

A proposed risk rule raises the share of ecommerce authorizations routed to manual review. Reviewers work a shared pool of queues serving both arms, so extra referrals from treatment lengthen the wait for control cases too. The current plan randomises by customer_id and reads decision latency plus matured fraud basis points. Explain why that design is biased and in which direction, propose a design that is not, and say what governs its power.

Approach

Name the violated assumption precisely: a unit's outcome depends on other units' assignments through the shared reviewer capacity, so the stable unit treatment value assumption fails. Customer-level randomisation then estimates a contrast between a degraded treatment and a degraded control, not between treatment and the status quo.
State the direction. Treatment pushes work into the shared queue, control absorbs part of that wait, so the measured latency difference understates the true effect of full rollout. The test can look acceptable while the rolled-out state is materially worse, which is the expensive failure mode here.
Move randomisation up to a unit that contains the interference. Either cluster-randomise whole queues or sites, or run a switchback that flips the rule for an entire queue over time blocks. Switchback is usually the better choice here because queue count is small and each queue serves as its own control, removing between-queue heterogeneity.
Specify the switchback concretely. Block length should be several times the queue sojourn time; discard a burn-in after each switch equal to the 95th percentile sojourn so carryover cases from the previous regime do not contaminate the new block; balance assignment within each day so the daily arrival pattern cannot correlate with arm.
Analyse at the randomisation unit. Aggregate to queue-block means, include queue and time-block fixed effects, and use randomisation inference or a wild cluster bootstrap rather than cluster-robust standard errors, which are anti-conservative with few clusters. Check residual autocorrelation between adjacent blocks; if it is material, widen the blocks or model it.
Separate the two readouts by maturity. Latency and referral precision at case close are available inside the test window; matured fraud basis points require at least 120 days of dispute maturity from the transaction month, so it is a deferred confirmatory read and must not be presented as a low number on immature cohorts.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the interference channel explicitly: reviewer capacity is fixed per queue per hour, arrivals are the sum of both arms, so control's wait is a function of treatment's assignment.
Choose a queue-by-four-hour-block switchback across 14 queues for 30 days, giving 14 * 6 * 30 = 2,520 blocks, with within-day balanced assignment and a burn-in equal to the 95th percentile sojourn discarded at each switch.
Compute power at the block level. With a residual block-level standard deviation of decision latency of 6 minutes after removing queue and day-of-week fixed effects, and half the blocks per arm, MDE = 2.8016 * sqrt(2 * 36 / 1260).
State the caveat that adjacent blocks are autocorrelated, so the effective block count is below 2,520 and the analytic MDE is a floor; estimate the inflation from historical block-to-block autocorrelation before committing.
Split the readout: latency and referral precision as the in-window primary, matured fraud basis points as a deferred read at 120 days with immature months marked incomplete rather than plotted.

Expected result: A queue-by-time-block switchback with burn-in exclusion and within-day balanced assignment, analysed on block means with queue and time fixed effects and randomisation inference. With 2,520 blocks and a 6-minute residual block standard deviation, the analytic MDE on decision latency is 2.8016 * sqrt(72 / 1260) = 2.8016 * 0.2390 = 0.67 minutes, stated as a floor pending the autocorrelation correction. Power is governed by block count and between-block residual variance, not by transaction volume.

Verify it yourself

An A/A switchback on historical data should produce block-level differences centred on zero with a standard deviation matching the residual block standard deviation used in the power calculation.
Plot the effect against time since the last switch. If it is not flat after the burn-in window, the burn-in is too short and carryover is still present.
Confirm that arm assignment is orthogonal to hour of day and day of week in the realised schedule, since queue load is strongly periodic.
Cluster count, not row count, should appear in the degrees of freedom of the final inference; if the standard error implies thousands of independent observations, the analysis is at the wrong grain.

Follow-up

How do you set the block length when the queue sojourn time itself changes under treatment?
You have 14 queues and 30 days. Compare a queue-level cluster design against a queue-day switchback on power and on what each can estimate.
The shared resource is capacity. What happens to your estimate if reviewers work faster when the queue is long?

Approval rate fell but approved value did not

Easy · approval rate · retry chains · denominators

Over ten days the count-weighted 7-day approval rate on fct_payment_authorization fell from 91 to 86 percent, while captured value in the reporting currency is flat. Available columns: auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, mcc, channel, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, risk_score, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, issuer_country. In twenty minutes, decide whether approved value is actually at risk, and hand back a corrected rate together with its denominator and every exclusion written down.

Approach

Restate the denominator before querying anything. The current one counts every row, so reversals (is_reversal = true), incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null) and zero-amount verification attempts (amount_minor = 0) are all sitting in it.
Chart numerator and denominator separately by day. If approved counts are flat and total attempts rose, the rate moved because the denominator grew, which is a different investigation from a rule change and points at a different owner.
Group declines by decline_reason_code and merchant_id. Retry-driven inflation concentrates in a few soft decline codes at a few merchants; a genuine policy change spreads across merchants within one code family.
Collapse retry chains: partition by (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor), keep one attempt per 15-minute window taking the best outcome, and recompute both count-weighted and dollar-weighted rates on the collapsed set.
Convert amount_minor to one reporting currency using each currency's ISO 4217 exponent before any dollar weighting, then cut by channel and issuer_country to confirm nothing is hiding underneath a flat total.
Report both rates side by side with the exclusion list attached, and state which definition the alert should have been built on.

Follow-up

How would you pick the retry-collapsing window when merchants retry on different schedules?
Flat captured value could itself be hiding a mix shift. How do you rule that out?
What monitor would have caught denominator inflation on the day it started, rather than ten days later?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.

Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.

Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.

Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.

Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.

Day 5 — Write SQL the way you will have to write it live

Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.

Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.

Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.

Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.

Getting an analysis acted on

Work that nobody used is a common and unflattering pattern in data careers, and interviewers probe for it. Have a story about an analysis that changed a decision, and be specific about how you got it in front of the person who could act. Also have one about work that went nowhere, with your reading of why.

Describe a time you used a statistical method to solve a business problem.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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

Retract a published number after finding a currency bug

Medium · error disclosure · minor units · process repair

Two weeks ago you published an interchange and fraud analysis that summed amount_minor across fct_payment_authorization without converting currencies. Minor units are not two decimals everywhere: some currencies carry none and some carry three, so the sum has no interpretation. A pricing decision is already in flight on the back of it. You now have corrected figures. Produce the retraction: what you send, to whom, in what order, and what you change in the process so this class of error is caught next time rather than trusted next time.

Approach

Size the error before announcing it, because saying the number is wrong without a magnitude and a direction forces every reader to assume the worst case.
Check whether the conclusion actually flips: if the ranking that drove the pricing decision is unchanged, that belongs in the first sentence beside the correction rather than buried at the end.
Tell the person acting on it first and directly, then the wider distribution, using the same text, so nobody learns about it secondhand.
Write the correction as four parts: the old number, the cause in one clause, the effect on the pending decision, and the new number. Leave out self-flagellation, which makes the reader do emotional work instead of acting.
Fix the class rather than the instance: a rule that a sum over amount_minor either groups by transaction_currency or passes through both conversion steps, exponent scaling and then a dated rate into one named reporting currency, plus a standing reconciliation of the settled subset to the settlement ledger inside each settlement_currency.

Follow-up

The corrected figures do not change the decision. Do you still send the correction, and what does that choice signal?
What automated check would have caught this, where would it live, and what would it cost in false alarms?

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?