Interview guides · Capgemini Invent

Capgemini Invent Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist prep for Capgemini Invent candidates: drill A/B design, power and minimum detectable effect on original exercises.

The 60-second brief

A Data Scientist at Capgemini Invent plays a pivotal role in driving data-driven decision-making and innovation across various sectors. This position is vital in transforming complex data sets into actionable insights that enhance strategy and operational efficiency. As a Data Scientist, you will collaborate with cross-functional teams to develop predictive models, optimize algorithms, and provide analytical solutions that directly impact business outcomes.

When randomisation is off the table, the skill being checked is naming an identification strategy together with the assumption it rests on: parallel trends for difference-in-differences, relevance and exclusion for an instrument, overlap and conditional ignorability for matching. Say the assumption out loud and say how you would try to break it.

Focus areas

Turn a vague request into a measurable question
Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

The role is particularly critical at Capgemini Invent due to the increasing reliance on data analytics in shaping client strategies and solutions. You will work on diverse projects that may span industries such as finance, healthcare, and technology, addressing challenges that require a blend of technical expertise and strategic thinking. Expect to engage in high-stakes environments where your contributions can significantly influence product development, user experience, and market positioning.

The Capgemini Invent interview process

Capgemini Invent candidates report 4 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

HR Discussion

An extra round usually exists because something is still open after the standard loop: a skill the earlier interviews did not sample, a level decision, or two interviewers who disagreed. It is rarely a rerun of what you already did well. Ask the recruiter who you are meeting, what function they sit in, and how long the session runs. That is an ordinary scheduling question, and the answer changes what you should prepare. What separates a strong candidate here is treating the round as a fresh evaluation with its own bar, rather than assuming earlier performance carries you through or sinks you.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can answer well on ground the earlier rounds did not cover, without leaning on what you already said to someone else
Consistency of the facts in your stories: the same sample size, timeframe, team size and scope of your own role as in earlier conversations
How you handle an unfamiliar format live, including whether you ask what kind of answer is wanted before producing one

How to prepare

Ask the recruiter for the interviewer's function, the length, and whether to expect a coding surface, a discussion, or a presentation. Preparing for a 30 minute conversation with a partner team is not the same work as preparing for a 60 minute technical block.
Write out what each earlier round actually covered, then list the two or three areas nobody probed. That gap is the most likely subject of the extra round.
Re-read the numbers in the project stories you have already told, so a second telling does not quietly contradict the first.

Technical Assignment

Before any modelling, the dataset is itself the first test. Take-home data usually carries something broken: rows duplicated at an unexpected grain, a join that silently drops part of the population, timestamps stored in more than one timezone, or missingness correlated with the outcome. An hour spent profiling row counts, key uniqueness and date ranges is not overhead, because it decides whether every number after it is real. What separates submissions is whether you report the defects you found and adapt the analysis to them, rather than modelling over them quietly and hoping the aggregate absorbs it.

What to demonstrate

Whether you established the grain of each table and checked row counts after every join, and said so in the writeup
Whether data defects you found are surfaced with their effect on the conclusion, instead of being dropped without comment
Whether filters and exclusions are reproducible from the submitted code, with the size of the excluded population quantified

How to prepare

Write a short profiling script you can point at any unfamiliar table: row count, distinct key count, null rate per column, and the min and max of every date field, then run it before anything else
Write the funnel or the join chain as one query and check the row count at each grain, so a silent fan-out shows up as a number rather than as a wrong answer later
On a past dataset, list every exclusion you applied and how many rows each one removed, then draft the single sentence about it you would put in a report

Presentation

An added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact

How to prepare

Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.

Team Leader Interview

Because the format is not fixed, prepare the reasoning rather than the ritual. Nearly every version of this round draws on the same underlying material: a design you can defend, a metric you can define exactly, an analysis whose assumptions you can state out loud. Only the wrapper changes, whether that is a take-home, a live case, a deep dive on past work, or a rough estimate on a whiteboard. Answers rehearsed to fit one shape stall the moment the shape differs. Practise naming the assumption behind a number, then saying how much the conclusion moves if that assumption is wrong.

What to demonstrate

Whether your justification for a method survives the question 'why not the simpler thing', including when the simpler thing would have worked
Precision under pressure: what exactly counts as an active user, a conversion or a success, over what window, with what exclusions
Whether you carry an argument through to a recommendation instead of stopping at a list of tradeoffs

How to prepare

For each project you plan to mention, write the metric definition in one sentence: numerator, denominator, time window, exclusions. Say it out loud once, because vagueness shows up in speech before it shows up on paper.
Rehearse the same project at three lengths: two minutes, ten minutes, and a deep dive on one technical decision. Cutting live is harder than it sounds.
For your headline result, write down what would have had to be true for it to be wrong, and how you ruled that out.

Where candidates lose points

Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel

The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.

Comparing cohort retention curves of different maturities, or building the curve from users who are still present

A cohort four weeks old has no week-8 value, so an average taken across cohorts silently drops young cohorts from the later columns and keeps them in the earlier ones. The curve then bends upward at the tail, and the reading that 'retention is improving over time' is an artefact of which cohorts survived to be measured. The same error appears in the denominator when retention is computed over users active in the current period rather than over the full original cohort, which conditions on survival and guarantees a flattering number. The fix is a triangle: fix the cohort at signup, bound every window on both sides, and only compare cells where every cohort has had the full elapsed time, publishing the rest as blank rather than as a partial average.

Dropping rows with missing values without naming the mechanism

Say whether the values are missing at random, missing by a known process, or missing in a way that depends on the outcome, and handle them accordingly. Deleting incomplete rows silently redefines the population whenever missingness correlates with what you are measuring.

Explaining an aggregate move without decomposing the mix shift

Split the change in the aggregate into within-segment movement and movement in segment weights before you explain it. Every segment's rate can fall while the overall rate rises, purely because volume shifted toward segments that already had higher rates.

Questions & practice

How would you implement a K-means clustering algorithm?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
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?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

What is overfitting, and how can it be prevented?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

Write a function to perform linear regression in Python.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
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.

Follow-up

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

Audit a one-day event extract for structural defects

Easy · data quality · late arrival · pandas

You receive a one-day extract of fct_event as a DataFrame with event_id, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc, visitor_id, user_id, account_id, event_name, is_bot_flagged and surface. Write a function returning one row per data-quality rule with the rule name, the failing row count and the failing share of the extract. Cover at minimum: duplicate event_id, received_at_utc earlier than occurred_at_utc, occurred_at_utc later than the extract's maximum received_at_utc, account_id present while user_id is NULL, and rows whose occurred_at date differs from their received_at date. Do not drop rows; report only.

Approach

Compute the extract's own reference clock first: max(received_at_utc). Wall-clock now() is wrong here because the extract may be replayed days later, which would turn every row into a future-dated failure.
Express each rule as a boolean Series over the same index so the checks compose, then aggregate with .sum() and divide by len(df). Building a list of (name, mask) pairs keeps the rule set extensible and keeps one code path for counting.
For the duplicate rule, decide and state the convention: df.duplicated('event_id', keep=False).sum() counts every member of a duplicated group, df.duplicated('event_id').sum() counts only the surplus copies. Either is defensible; an unstated choice is not. The rest of this item assumes keep=False.
Treat received_at < occurred_at as clock skew, not corruption: occurred_at is client-supplied. Separate it from the date-mismatch rule, which is the one that actually breaks a daily metric keyed on occurred_at.
Know which rules imply which before you read the counts. A row whose occurred_at exceeds max(received_at_utc) has its own received_at no later than that maximum, so it is necessarily a clock-skew row as well: the future-dated mask is a subset of the skew mask, always. Neither is a subset of the date-mismatch mask, because skew of a few minutes inside one UTC date mismatches nothing.
Return a tidy DataFrame sorted by failing_share descending, and add a boolean column saying whether the rule should block publication, so the output is a decision rather than a list of numbers.

Worked solution (20 min)

Parse both timestamp columns with utc=True and assert the dtype, since a silently-object column makes every comparison string-wise and wrong.
Set ref = df['received_at_utc'].max() and build the five masks against it.
Assemble results as pd.DataFrame(rows) with columns rule, failing_rows, failing_share, blocks_publication.
Keep the masks addressable (a dict of name to Series) rather than only their sums, so the overlap between rules can be asserted rather than assumed.
Verify the function is pure: assert the input frame's shape is unchanged after the call.

Expected result: A DataFrame with one row per rule, failing_share equal to failing_rows divided by len(df) for every row, and the input frame returned unmodified. The rules overlap rather than partition the extract, and one containment is structural: every future-dated row is also a clock-skew row. The counts therefore must not be summed or presented as a total.

Verify it yourself

Plant violations deliberately and assert an exact expected vector rather than assuming one hit per rule. On a 10-row frame carrying two rows that share an event_id, one same-date skew row, one row whose occurred_at sits an hour past max(received_at_utc), one row with account_id set and user_id NULL, and one row whose occurred_at falls on the previous UTC date: duplicate_event_id is 2 under the keep=False convention, clock_skew is 2 (the planted skew row plus the future-dated row, which cannot avoid tripping it), future_dated is 1, orphan_account is 1, date_mismatch is 1.
Assert the containment directly rather than by counting: (future_dated_mask & ~clock_skew_mask).sum() is 0. A non-zero value means the reference clock was not max(received_at_utc).
Feed a clean frame and confirm all counts are 0 and no rule errors on empty masks.
Confirm len(input) is identical before and after, since the deliverable is a report and not a cleaned frame.

Follow-up

The date-mismatch count is 2.1 percent on this extract. What late-arrival rule would you write for a daily metric, and how many days would you hold the number open?
Duplicate event_id values appear only on the 'core_action_completed' event. What upstream cause would you check before deduplicating?
Which of these rules should fire an alert at the pipeline, and which should only appear in a weekly review?

Explain the time complexity of your solution for a given problem.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Attribute account MRR to first-touch channel without seat fan-out

Medium · fan-out · joins · revenue · attribution

dim_user holds user_id, account_id, first_touch_channel, account_created_at_utc. dim_account holds account_id, lifecycle_status. fct_subscription_period holds account_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, period_status, mrr_cents_constant_fx. For a given as-of date, report active MRR by the first-touch channel of the account's earliest-created user. An account has many users and many periods. The channel totals must sum exactly to total active MRR on that date, and accounts whose label is NULL must appear as their own bucket.

Approach

Reduce the label side to one row per account before any join: ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY account_created_at_utc, user_id) = 1 over dim_user, carrying first_touch_channel. Joining dim_user to the period table directly repeats each revenue row once per seat.
Reduce the money side to one row per account too: the period where period_start_utc <= :as_of AND period_end_utc > :as_of AND period_status IN ('active','past_due'). If more than one row survives that filter the account holds overlapping subscriptions, which must be deduped or deliberately summed, and either way the choice is stated rather than left to the join.
Join the two one-row-per-account CTEs and SUM(mrr_cents_constant_fx). Use the constant-FX column, since the same query run in two quarters otherwise reports currency moves as channel performance.
Bucket NULL first_touch_channel as 'unattributed' with COALESCE instead of letting it drop. Roughly the share of users with no observed touch is not small, and dropping it understates the total and inflates every named channel's share.
Reconcile: the SUM over the joined result must equal the SUM over the period CTE alone. That single equality check catches fan-out immediately, which is why it is worth writing before presenting the number.

Worked solution (30 min)

Compute total active MRR on the as-of date from the period table alone and write the number down as the target.
Build the label CTE and assert COUNT(*) = COUNT(DISTINCT account_id).
Build the as-of period CTE and assert the same, investigating any account with more than one surviving row.
Join, COALESCE the channel, aggregate, and compare the total to the target.
Deliberately run the naive dim_user join and record the inflation factor, which is the MRR-weighted mean seat count.

Expected result: One row per first_touch_channel plus an 'unattributed' bucket, whose MRR values sum exactly to the independently computed total active MRR for the as-of date.

Verify it yourself

Channel total equals the standalone total from the period CTE, to the cent.
Both CTEs satisfy COUNT(*) = COUNT(DISTINCT account_id).
The unattributed bucket is present and non-zero rather than silently absent.
The naive join version produces a strictly larger total, and you can state the ratio.

Follow-up

Which user should own the account's label: earliest created, the 'owner' role, or the one who converted? What does each choice systematically favour?
What does this table entitle you to say about the value of a channel, and what does it not?
Some accounts have a parent_account_id. How does rolling those up change both the numerator and the channel mix?

How would you prioritize competing data projects with limited resources?

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.
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?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

Analyze a business case where data insights can optimize a process.

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.
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?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

Explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning.

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.

Follow-up

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

Define success for a rebuilt first-run onboarding checklist

Easy · activation · metric tree · cohorts

A rebuilt first-run checklist ships to all new signups next month. You have dim_user (user_id, account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal) and fct_event (user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, event_name, surface). Propose a primary metric with an explicit numerator, denominator, window and publication lag, plus two guardrails and one diagnostic you would refuse to treat as success. The team wants a number it can read weekly, and the constraint is that everything must be computable from those two tables alone. Deliver the metric tree from the north star down to the metric you chose.

Approach

Fix the grain and the cohort key first: the checklist is seen by users, so count on user_id with account_created_at_utc as the cohort key, and say out loud that the north star is account-grained so the tree crosses grains here deliberately rather than by accident.
Take seven-day activation as the primary — core action on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, +7 days) — because the two-distinct-days predicate cannot be satisfied by the single checklist-completion click the feature itself produces.
Demote checklist completion rate to a diagnostic and give the reason: it is an output of the feature, so it is near-perfectly correlated with having shipped the feature and cannot fall when the feature is bad.
Pick guardrails by the failure each one catches, not by what is easy to query: week-4 signup-cohort retention catches an activation gain that does not persist, and p50 minutes to first core action catches a checklist that adds steps to a path users already completed.
State the operational rules explicitly: is_internal = FALSE, an 8-day publication lag, and signup_surface values 'invite' and 'sso_provisioned' split out because those users arrive through an administrator rather than a self-serve signup and may not be shown the checklist at all.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the primary in full: numerator = cohort users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least 2 distinct UTC dates in [account_created_at_utc, +7 days); denominator = all dim_user rows in the cohort week with is_internal = FALSE.
Draw the tree downward: weekly active accounts completing a core action, then seven-day activation rate multiplied by weekly signups, then checklist step completion and time-to-first-core-action labelled as diagnostics.
Attach the timing rules: 8-day lag, and a cohort with fewer than seven full elapsed days published blank rather than partial.
Attach each guardrail to its named failure mode in one line each, so the guardrail list reads as a list of specific risks rather than a list of metrics.
Write the exclusion rule and the surface split, and state what you would do if 'invite' users turn out to be a third of the cohort.

Expected result: A primary metric stated as numerator, denominator, window, lag and exclusions; two guardrails each tied to a named failure mode; and checklist completion explicitly demoted to a diagnostic with the reason given.

Verify it yourself

The denominator includes cohort users who never returned. If it is built from users with any event, the metric is conditioned on survival and will read several points too high.
Recomputing a cohort's activation rate three days after first publication must return the same number. If it moves, the right-hand window bound or the late-arrival rule is missing.
The per-surface cohort counts must sum to the unsplit cohort count, so confirm signup_surface IN ('invite','sso_provisioned') is broken out rather than dropped. Note the limit while you are there: neither dim_user nor fct_event carries a pre-signup identifier, so whether those users were ever shown the checklist is not answerable from these two tables — the surface split is the only handling available, and the metric definition has to say that rather than imply exposure was verified.

Follow-up

Activation rises three points but week-4 retention is flat. What do you tell the team, and what would you need to distinguish a real gain from pulled-forward activity?
The checklist ships on web only. What changes in the denominator, and what breaks if you leave every surface in?
Signup mix shifted toward 'invite' the same week. How would you show whether the activation move was mix or behaviour?

Decide whether a one-day core-action drop is real

Easy · seasonality · day-of-week · late-arriving-data

A daily dashboard counts distinct fct_event.user_id with is_core_action = TRUE, filtered on occurred_at_utc, and is read at 09:00 UTC. This morning it shows yesterday down 22% against the day before. fct_event is partitioned on received_at_utc. You have fct_event, fct_session and dim_user with thirteen months of history. Deliver a one-paragraph verdict, escalate or do not escalate, with the evidence that settles it, before anyone proposes a product hypothesis.

Approach

Identify which two weekdays the comparison actually spans, then pull the same weekday-pair transition for the last 52 weeks and place the observed 22% inside that distribution. A day-over-day comparison in a product with a weekday pattern is a comparison of two different populations, so the reference class is the same transition historically, not the prior day.
Measure partition completeness rather than assuming it. For each of the last 30 days compute the share of that day's occurred_at_utc rows that had landed by 09:00 UTC the following morning, split by surface; mobile clients buffer events offline, so the freshest partition is systematically short and the shortfall is not uniform across surfaces.
Recompute the same series keyed on received_at_utc. If the drop survives on both keys it is not a lateness artefact; if it exists only on occurred_at_utc it is the partition filling in.
Check the two exclusion flags before segmenting anything: a change in is_bot_flagged coverage or a batch of is_internal accounts entering or leaving moves a distinct-user count with no user behaviour behind it.
Only if the movement survives all of the above, begin the segment decomposition. Say explicitly in the verdict which of these four checks the movement passed, so the next reader does not repeat them.

Follow-up

What publication lag would you set for this dashboard, and how would you derive the number rather than pick it?
If you switch the metric to received_at_utc, what does that break for anyone comparing to historical figures?
How would you detect the same problem automatically, so a human does not have to notice it each morning?

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.

Ambiguous requests are the test

Most of the questions in this section reduce to one thing: can you be handed a vague request and come back with something useful? Prepare an example where the ask was underspecified, you chose an interpretation, and you said out loud which interpretation you chose. Describing how you narrowed the question matters more than the technique you eventually used.

Present a time when you turned data analysis into actionable recommendations.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.

Follow-up

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

What motivates you to pursue a career in data science?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.

Follow-up

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

Walk through an analysis you got wrong and what changed

Easy · postmortem · data quality · self-assessment

Describe an analysis of yours that turned out to be wrong after somebody had already acted on it. You have four minutes. The account must name the defect mechanically, the join, the filter, the window or the identity key, rather than describing it as a communication problem. It must also say who did what because of the wrong number, how the error surfaced, how long it stood, and what control you put in place so that class of error cannot reach a decision again. Do not pick an error nobody acted on.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can be specific about your own failure without minimising it or performing contrition. The discriminator is whether the defect has a mechanism the listener could reproduce in their own warehouse.
Choose the case by blast radius rather than by comfort. An error nobody acted on tests nothing, and picking one signals that you are managing the interview instead of answering it.
Structure the account in six beats: the number, the decision it drove, the defect, the detection, the correction, the control. Keep the defect to one reproducible sentence, for example an inner join to fct_subscription_period that dropped accounts with no subscription row and so computed retention over payers only.
State the direction of the bias, not only its existence. A filter or join that removes rows usually moves a metric predictably, and knowing which way shows you diagnosed the mechanism rather than patched the symptom.
Be exact about detection and elapsed time. 'A colleague noticed' and 'the row-count assertion failed before publication' are different answers about the same organisation, and the second one is the one your control is supposed to produce next time.
End on the control, its cost, whether it has fired since, and one thing it does not cover.

Follow-up

What did the control cost, and has it fired since? If it never has, how do you know it works?
How long did the wrong number stand before anyone questioned it, and what does that say about the review path it went through?
What is the equivalent mistake you are most likely to make in this role, given the tables you would be working in?