Interview guides · Blue Shield Of California

Blue Shield Of California Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Causal inference drills for Blue Shield Of California data scientist prep: diff-in-diff, matching, instruments, and the limits of observed data.

The 60-second brief

A Data Scientist at Blue Shield Of California plays a pivotal role in transforming complex healthcare data into actionable strategies that directly impact member health, care delivery, and business operations. Operating within a mission-driven, non-profit health plan, you will leverage advanced analytics, machine learning, and statistical modeling to solve some of the most pressing challenges in the healthcare industry. Your work will influence how products are designed, how clinical programs are evaluated, and how millions of Californians access affordable, high-quality care.

Nearly every loop contains a round whose deliverable is a recommendation to someone non-technical. Practise stating a conclusion, the confidence attached to it, and the cost of being wrong in each direction, because that triple is the artifact being graded.

Focus areas

Risk-adjust outcomes before comparing providers or panels
Minimise protected health information in every extract
Correct for claims runout before reporting recent months

Overview

In roles such as the Principal Data Scientist within Product Insights and Reporting, you will act as a strategic bridge between technical engineering teams and business leadership. You will design analytical frameworks to measure product performance, build predictive models to identify opportunities for cost savings, and create robust reporting pipelines. The scale of data you will work with—ranging from electronic health records and claims data to digital engagement metrics—requires both technical rigor and a deep appreciation for data privacy and security.

This position is highly collaborative and carries significant strategic weight. Success in this role means going beyond model development; you must be able to translate complex statistical findings into clear, compelling narratives for non-technical stakeholders. If you are passionate about using data to drive systemic change in healthcare and enjoy working at the intersection of predictive modeling, product strategy, and business intelligence, this role offers an exceptionally rewarding career path.

The Blue Shield Of California interview process

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

HR Screening

Data Scientist covers at least four different jobs: experimentation, product analytics, causal work on observational data, and applied modelling that ships into a system. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which of them is being hired for, and doing that diagnosis openly reads as senior rather than fussy. Ask what the last few pieces of work on the team actually were, and roughly how a week splits between querying, modelling and stakeholder time. Then say which parts of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole range is the fastest way to be caught one round later.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can distinguish the flavours of the role and locate your own experience inside one of them honestly
Whether you name what you have not done instead of stretching to cover every line of the posting
Whether your hard constraints (notice period, location, work authorisation, level) surface now rather than at offer stage

How to prepare

Map the last two years of your time into rough percentages across query writing, experiment design, modelling and stakeholder work, so a question about scope has a real answer
Mark every responsibility in the posting as done, adjacent or new, and prepare one sentence for each adjacent item naming the closest thing you have actually built
Decide which logistics are non-negotiable before the call so you can state them in one sentence rather than negotiating live

Technical Assessment

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

Panel Interview

A day of back-to-back interviews samples your floor, not your ceiling. Four hours in, the habits that carry a good answer are the first to go: restating the question before solving it, asking what the data would have to look like, checking a number before quoting it. What the day decides is whether the tired version of you is still someone to leave alone with an ambiguous problem. The round that sinks a candidate is usually not the hardest one. It is the one immediately after the round that went badly.

What to demonstrate

Whether the late rounds get the same clarifying questions as the first one, or whether you start answering immediately to save effort
Whether a weak answer stays in the room it happened in, instead of following you into the next conversation as apology or distraction
Whether the quality of your questions holds up, since fatigue removes curiosity about the problem before it removes knowledge of the method

How to prepare

Rehearse the length, not just the content: book four mock interviews of different types in one afternoon with short gaps, because the one you need to observe is the fourth
Put the two or three questions you ask at the start of any problem on a card in front of you, so that under fatigue it is a habit you run rather than a decision you make
Decide in advance what the gap between rooms is for: water, one line of notes on anything you promised to follow up, and an explicit close on the round that just ended so it does not travel
Prepare a different closing question for each interviewer, so the end of a long day does not produce the same one four times

Where candidates lose points

Ignoring clustering by provider, facility, or site

Patients within a provider panel, and subjects within a trial site, are correlated on both case mix and practice pattern. Standard errors computed as if observations were independent are too narrow by roughly the design effect, 1 + (m - 1) * ICC, where m is the average cluster size. With 50 patients per provider and an intracluster correlation of only 0.02, variance is understated by about a factor of two, which manufactures significant provider differences out of noise. Cluster-robust errors or a random intercept per provider, and cluster-level randomisation when you design the test, are the corrections.

Pre-post evaluation on a high-cost or high-risk cohort

Cohorts selected on an extreme value of the outcome regress toward the mean on their own. Members identified as the top 1 percent of spend in one year spend far less the next, whether or not anyone intervenes, because the selecting year captured both chronic severity and one-off events. A pre-post design on such a cohort will report savings every time. A concurrent comparison group selected by the same rule in the same period, or a regression discontinuity at the selection threshold, is the minimum credible design.

Reading experiment results before checking the arm split

Compare observed arm counts against the intended allocation ratio, not an assumed even split, and set the alarm far below the conventional 0.05: at 0.05 roughly one healthy experiment in twenty trips it, which is why sample-ratio checks usually run at p < 0.001 or stricter. The test's power scales with sample size, so it misses a real diversion on a small experiment and fires on an imbalance too small to move the estimate on a very large one. A flag means go find the assignment or logging fault before reading any outcome, not report a mismatch.

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

Describe the difference between L1 (Lasso) and L2 (Ridge) regularization and how they affect model coefficients.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
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?

Explain the trade-off between bias and variance, and describe how you would diagnose which one is hurting your model's performance.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
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?

Simulate how ignoring clustering inflates the false positive rate

Medium · simulation · design effect · type i error

Simulate a provider-level comparison with no true effect. 40 providers, 60 members each, a continuous outcome with total variance 1 and intraclass correlation 0.02. Randomise providers 20 to 20, not members. Over 5,000 replications, report the share of replications where a two-sample t-test run on all 2,400 individual observations, ignoring provider, returns p below 0.05. Report the same share when the unit of analysis is the 40 provider means. Then state how the first number follows from the design effect 1 + (m - 1) x ICC.

Approach

Decompose the variance explicitly rather than tuning it: provider variance = ICC = 0.02, residual variance = 1 - ICC = 0.98. Draw u_j once per provider and e_ij per member, so the outcome is u_j + e_ij and the correlation between two members of one provider is 0.02 by construction.
Randomise at the provider level. That is the entire mechanism: the treatment indicator is constant within a provider, so in any single replicate the provider intercepts are confounded with the arm, and the naive test reads that confounding as signal.
Vectorise over replications with a (reps, providers, members) array. 5,000 x 2,400 normals is trivial in numpy, and a Python loop is what tempts people to cut replications to 500 and report a number with Monte Carlo noise of plus or minus 0.017.
Predict the answer before running it: design effect = 1 + (60 - 1) x 0.02 = 2.18, naive standard errors are too small by sqrt(2.18) = 1.476, so the rejection rate at nominal 0.05 is about 2 x (1 - Phi(1.96 / 1.476)) = 0.18. Agreement between prediction and simulation is what makes the result a demonstration rather than an anecdote.
Run the provider-mean analysis as the control. Recovering 0.05 there proves the generator is correct and isolates the failure to the analysis unit.

Worked solution (30 min)

Draw u with shape (reps, 40) from N(0, sqrt(0.02)) and e with shape (reps, 40, 60) from N(0, sqrt(0.98)); y = u[:, :, None] + e.
Assign providers 0-19 to one arm and 20-39 to the other; because there is no true effect, a fixed split is valid and removes one source of Monte Carlo noise.
Naive test: flatten each arm to 1,200 observations and compute a two-sample t statistic per replication with vectorised means and pooled variance.
Cluster test: average within provider to 40 values, then run the same two-sample t on 20 versus 20.
Report both rejection shares and compare the naive one against 2 x (1 - Phi(1.96 / sqrt(2.18))).

Expected result: The naive individual-level test rejects in roughly 18 percent of replications, against a nominal 5 percent. Monte Carlo standard error at 5,000 replications is about 0.005, so anything in 0.17 to 0.19 is consistent. The provider-mean analysis rejects in about 5 percent, within roughly 0.003.

Verify it yourself

Set ICC to 0 and both analyses return about 0.05. If the naive one does not, the data generator is wrong, not the test.
Raise members per provider from 60 to 120 with ICC fixed and the naive rate rises, because the design effect grows linearly in cluster size.
The provider-mean analysis stays near 0.05 at every ICC you try, which is the definition of a valid test.
The simulated naive rate lands within about 0.01 of 2 x (1 - Phi(1.96 / sqrt(design effect))).

Follow-up

How many providers would you need for 80 percent power on a 0.2 SD difference with 60 members each and this ICC?
Cluster sizes are unequal in reality. The design effect approximation becomes 1 + ((1 + CV^2) x mbar - 1) x ICC. Which direction does that move your sample size and why?
The intervention cannot be withheld from any provider. Sketch a design that still yields a defensible estimate.

Write a SQL query to calculate the month-over-month growth rate of active members using self-joins or window functions.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

How would you optimize a slow-performing SQL query that involves multiple large table joins and aggregations?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Explain how you would use the Pandas library to clean a dataset containing inconsistent date formats and missing demographic information.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

Deduplicate claim versions before totalling allowed amounts

Easy · dedup · window functions · claim versions

medical_claim_line holds one row per service line per claim version: claim_line_id, claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code (1 original, 7 replacement, 8 void), member_id, service_start_date, procedure_code, allowed_amount, claim_status and adjudicated_at. Adjusted claims appear more than once, so summing every row double counts them. Return total allowed_amount by procedure_code for service_start_date in Q1 2025, counting only lines with claim_status 'paid' on the surviving version of each claim, which is the highest claim_version per claim_id, and dropping the claim entirely when that surviving version carries frequency_code 8. Resolve survivorship with a window function, not a self-join.

Approach

Resolve survivorship at claim_id, not claim_line_id. Carry MAX(claim_version) OVER (PARTITION BY claim_id) alongside every line and keep lines where claim_version equals it, because a replacement version can contain a different number of lines than the original.
Read the frequency_code of the surviving version only. A frequency_code 8 removes the claim outright; it does not revert payment to the prior version, so a void must delete the claim rather than promote version n-1.
Apply claim_status and the date filter after survivorship is resolved. Filtering paid lines first can strip the surviving version and silently elect a superseded one.
Group by procedure_code and sum allowed_amount, then state the paid-through date on the output because Q1 amounts keep moving until adjudication runout completes.
Sanity check the shrinkage: report how many claim_ids and how many dollars the dedup removed, so the reviewer can see the step did something.

Worked solution (20 min)

Build a CTE that adds surviving_version = MAX(claim_version) OVER (PARTITION BY claim_id) and surviving_freq = the frequency_code of the row at that version, to every line.
Filter to claim_version = surviving_version so all lines of the surviving version survive together.
Drop claims whose surviving_freq is 8, then apply claim_status = 'paid' and service_start_date between 2025-01-01 and 2025-03-31.
Group by procedure_code, sum allowed_amount, and emit the count of distinct claim_ids contributing.
Run the naive SUM over all rows beside it and report the difference as the double count that was removed.

Expected result: One row per procedure_code with summed allowed_amount over surviving, non-voided, paid Q1 2025 lines. A claim with an original and one replacement contributes only the replacement's lines; a claim whose surviving version is a void contributes nothing.

Verify it yourself

Deduped total is strictly below the naive paid-and-Q1 SUM taken across all versions whenever at least one claim carries paid Q1 lines on more than one version. If the two totals match on such a claim, the dedup did nothing.
For one claim_id known to have three versions, the line count it contributes equals the number of its paid Q1 2025 lines at its highest claim_version, not 1.
Let B be the set of claim_ids whose surviving version has at least one paid line with a Q1 2025 service_start_date. COUNT(DISTINCT claim_id) in the output equals the size of B minus the number of claims in B whose surviving version carries frequency_code 8. Comparing instead against COUNT(DISTINCT claim_id) over the whole raw table is not a void test: that gap also absorbs every claim dropped by claim_status or by service date.

Follow-up

Two rows share a claim_id and claim_version but differ on adjudicated_at. What do you do, and what does that imply about the extract?
How does the query change if the request is allowed_amount by paid_date rather than service_start_date, and which basis does a finance reconciliation want?
A void arrives for a claim already published in a closed month. How do you restate without rewriting history in the warehouse?

How do you prioritize your analytical tasks when faced with competing requests from different business units?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

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?

Write a script to parse a JSON payload containing member health metrics and convert it into a flat tabular format.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

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

How would you design an A/B test to measure the impact of a new digital health feature on member engagement?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.

Follow-up

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

Walk me through a complex data science project you led from conception to deployment. What was the business impact, and how did you measure it?

Medium

Approach

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.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.

Follow-up

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

Set the decision rule when cost and denial guardrails conflict

Medium · guardrail conflict · denials · non-inferiority bound · audit sampling

Utilization management is asked to cut risk-adjusted allowed PMPM, and its lever is prior authorization and first-pass denial on advanced imaging and specialty drugs. The scorecard guardrail is first-pass denial rate from medical_claim_line (claim_status, denial_reason_code, claim_version, received_date) paired with the overturn rate on appealed denials. The two move in opposite directions by construction. Write the decision rule: which metric binds, at what pre-declared threshold, who adjudicates a breach, and what happens on breach. Do not resolve the conflict by weighting both into one score.

Approach

Say why a composite is the wrong instrument: the weights get chosen after someone has seen which way the quarter went, and any weighted sum lets a large enough cost win purchase an unbounded increase in wrong denials. A guardrail is a constraint, not a term in an objective.
Sharpen what the guardrail is actually protecting. A higher denial rate is not by itself a harm, since some denied claims should be denied. The harm is denials that should not have been made, so split first-pass denials by denial_reason_code into administratively correctable ones (eligibility, coding, missing documentation) and clinical-necessity ones, and put the bound only on the clinical group.
Fix the measurement of the guardrail before setting its threshold: count the denominator at claim_version 1 so replacements (frequency_code 7) and voids (8) are not double counted, hold the month back for 60 days of adjudication runout, and report by received_date.
Get the direction of the appeal-selection bias right. Appeals are filed on the denials the appellant already believes are wrong, by the members and providers with the staffing, literacy and dollar threshold to file at all, and an appeal usually arrives carrying documentation the first adjudication never had. The overturn rate on appealed denials therefore runs well above the wrong-denial rate across all denials, often by a multiple, and it moves with filing behaviour as much as with adjudication quality. The unbiased population estimate is a blind re-review of a random sample of all denied clinical-necessity lines each quarter, judged on the record as it stood at first adjudication; the appeal series is a fast indicator read against its own history between audits, not a second estimate of the same quantity.
Write the rule as a bound with a consequence: risk-adjusted allowed PMPM is the primary and binds only while the audited wrong-denial rate stays within a pre-declared absolute margin of its trailing four-quarter mean. Breach stops the program's expansion rather than discounting its score, and the margin is set before the quarter opens.
Name the adjudicator and the cadence: a clinical owner outside the utilization function, reviewing at the stated paid-through date, with the breach consequence written down before any result is known.

Worked solution (25 min)

Restate the guardrail metric properly: numerator is claim lines denied at first adjudication, denominator is lines received in the month counted at claim_version 1, held 60 days, broken out by denial_reason_code group.
Split denial_reason_code into administratively correctable and clinical-necessity groups and say which function owns each, since the two have different fixes and different harms.
Write the appeal-selection argument in two sentences, including which way it runs, and specify the random blind re-review: the frame it is drawn from, namely all denied clinical-necessity lines rather than appealed ones, plus sample size, who reviews, what record they are shown, blinding, and quarterly cadence.
State the bound as an absolute margin on the audited wrong-denial rate against its trailing four-quarter mean, with the margin fixed before the period.
Write the breach consequence and the named adjudicator, and note that both are recorded before results exist.

Expected result: A written rule in which risk-adjusted allowed PMPM is primary; the binding guardrail is the audited wrong-denial rate on clinical-necessity denials, estimated from a blind random re-review of all denied clinical-necessity lines, with the appeal overturn rate kept as a between-audit indicator that runs above the audited rate and never sets the bound; the bound is a pre-declared absolute margin against a trailing four-quarter mean; a clinical owner outside utilization management adjudicates; and a breach halts expansion rather than adjusting a score.

Verify it yourself

Recount the denominator with and without version dedup. If the two differ by more than a percent or two, the incumbent number has been counting resubmissions.
Re-run a closed month at two extract dates 60 days apart. A moving denial rate means the runout hold is too short.
Compare the audited wrong-denial rate to the appeal overturn rate for the same quarter. The overturn rate should be the higher of the two, usually by a multiple, because appeals are filed on the denials most likely to be wrong and often add documentation the first adjudication never saw. An audit rate at or above the overturn rate is the anomaly: check that the sample was drawn from all denied clinical-necessity lines rather than only appealed ones, and that the reviewers were blinded and shown the record as it stood at first adjudication.
Confirm the margin, the adjudicator and the consequence are all recorded with a timestamp before the period's data was available.

Follow-up

Denials rose and the overturn rate fell. Give the benign reading and the bad reading, and the one number that separates them.
What happens to your bound if the appeal filing rate per denial drops 30 percent in the same quarter?
How large a random audit sample do you need to detect a 2 percentage point rise in wrong denials off a 6 percent base, and what does that cost in clinician review hours?

Glycemic control share jumped when a feed connected

Medium · informative missingness · unit mismatch · metric specification

The share of members with a controlled glycemic result moved from 0.62 to 0.81 the month a second result feed was connected. lab_result carries result_id, order_id, patient_id, encounter_id, loinc_code, analyte_name, value_numeric, units, reference_low, reference_high, abnormal_flag, result_status and supersedes_result_id. The metric is members whose latest result in the year is below the control threshold, divided by members with any result in the year. Decide whether control actually improved, and specify the metric so results from both feeds can be pooled.

Approach

Split numerator and denominator. The denominator is members with any result, so a feed that tests more people changes the metric without changing anyone's health. Count denominator members before and after and see how much of the 19 point move is denominator growth.
Recompute on a fixed cohort: members who had a qualifying result in both the before and after periods. If the share is flat on the fixed cohort, the movement is who got tested, not what their results were.
Deduplicate to the latest non-cancelled row per (order_id, loinc_code), respecting supersedes_result_id, because a corrected result arrives as a new row and counting both gives one person two values.
Audit units and loinc_code mix by feed. Two unit conventions coexist for this analyte, percent and mmol/mol, related by mmol/mol equal to 10.929 times (percent minus 2.15), so 7.0 percent is 53 mmol/mol. Comparing mmol/mol values to a percent threshold would classify them all as uncontrolled and depress the share, so a rise cannot be explained by that mismatch, which rules it out rather than in.
State plainly that the tested population is not the covered population. Testing is ordered when someone suspects a problem or when a site runs standing orders, so the mean among tested members is not the population mean and cannot be made into one by imputation.
Respecify: numerator and denominator both restricted to members with a stated continuous-enrolment requirement, one deduplication rule, one unit after conversion, one threshold, and a separately reported testing rate so the denominator's movement is visible.

Follow-up

Someone proposes imputing the mean result for untested members. What happens to the estimate and why?
A model you are building gains AUC from a feature that marks whether the test exists. Why is that a warning rather than a win?
How would you report this metric so a clinical committee can see improvement separately from coverage of testing?

Suggested practice checklist

Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.

Deliverable: A five-item sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area

Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted improvement in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed next to the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

Where your data came from

Data people depend on systems owned by other teams, and much of the job is negotiating for instrumentation, access, or a fix to a broken pipeline. Prepare an example of getting something changed upstream that you did not control. Describe what you asked for, what you traded, and how you worked while you waited.

How do you handle exceptions and write defensive code in Python when processing large external data files?

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.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
What would you do differently if you ran that project again?

Push back on an over-broad extract without blocking the work

Hard · minimum necessary · de-identification · governance

A researcher asks for a one-off extract covering 12,000 members: member_id, date of birth, five-digit residential postal code, full lab_result rows including value_text, and clinical note text, held on their laptop for a retrospective analysis of one lab analyte over time. They describe it as de-identified because names are excluded. A flat refusal is not an acceptable answer. Deliverable: the column list you will actually provide with a justification per retained field, the sentence explaining why free text defeats an enumerated-identifier approach, your small-cell rule for the published stratification, and what you deliver this week.

Approach

The probe is whether privacy is a design skill for you or a compliance reflex. Flat refusal and unquestioned fulfilment both fail, for opposite reasons.
Reconstruct the analysis from the research question rather than from the request. A longitudinal trend in one analyte needs a stable pseudonymous subject key, the analyte's loinc_code, value_numeric, units, the reference bounds, and a date. It does not need names, notes, or a precise birth date.
Replace each identifier with the least precise version that still answers the question: a salted per-study pseudonym instead of member_id, age in years or an age band instead of date of birth, a consistent per-subject date offset if only intervals matter, and a coarser geography than five-digit postal code.
Explain the free-text problem in one sentence. Removing an enumerated list of identifier fields does not de-identify a note, because notes carry names, relationships, employers, dates and rare clinical detail in prose, so only a reviewed extraction into structured fields or a formal statistical determination addresses it.
Set the publication rule before the analysis runs. Suppress cells below a stated threshold and suppress complements too, because a reader holding a row total and all but one cell recovers the suppressed count by subtraction.
Keep them moving. Deliver the reduced extract into a controlled environment this week rather than onto a laptop, and offer to derive any note-based variable yourself as a structured flag so they never need the prose.

Follow-up

They say the age band loses resolution their model needs. What do you do?
How do you set the suppression threshold, and who signs off on it?
The analysis later needs linking to a second data source. What changes?

Explain an incomplete cost series to a non-technical executive

Medium · claims runout · uncertainty · executive communication

An executive opens a dashboard showing risk-adjusted allowed PMPM down 6 percent across the last three incurred months and asks whether the cost initiative is working. You know pharmacy adjudicates within days, professional claims within weeks, and inpatient facility claims over months, so those three months are both undercounted and mix-shifted toward cheap services. There is also a genuine movement of roughly 1.5 percent in the older, complete months. Deliverable: a two-minute spoken answer, the change you make to the chart, and what you commit to telling them and when.

Approach

The probe is whether you can be honest about uncertainty without sounding evasive. Executives read hedging as not knowing, so the answer has to end in a commitment.
Separate the two claims immediately. The 6 percent is an artefact of incomplete data, and there is a smaller real movement in the months that are complete. Delivering only the debunk leaves them holding nothing.
Explain the lag in their terms: the bills for the most expensive care arrive last, so an incomplete month always looks cheap and always looks like it is improving. Keep the phrase completion factor out of the first pass.
Fix the chart instead of explaining around it. Shade or omit the incomplete months, print the paid-through date on the axis, and overlay the same series as it looked at equivalent maturity a year earlier so the shape is comparable rather than merely lower.
Close with a date and a magnitude. Commit to a restated figure once runout matures, say roughly how far you expect the 6 percent to shrink, and name what you would need to see to call the initiative working.

Follow-up

They ask for your best guess today, knowing it is provisional. What do you say?
The restated number comes back at 1 percent. How do you handle having flagged the 6 percent at all?
How do you stop this dashboard producing the same conversation next quarter?