Interview guides · Capital Fund Management

Capital Fund Management Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Case practice for Capital Fund Management data scientist candidates: scope a vague prompt into a measurable question before you analyze it.

The 60-second brief

At Capital Fund Management (CFM), the Data Scientist role sits at the intersection of rigorous academic research and high-stakes financial engineering. You are not simply building models; you are expected to contribute to the firm’s core mission of systematic, quantitative investment. This role is highly research-intensive, requiring you to bridge the gap between theoretical statistical physics, advanced mathematics, and the practical challenges of processing large-scale financial datasets.

Product-sense cases reward reasoning from a mechanism to a testable prediction. Reciting every metric you can name reads as pattern matching; naming the single quantity that would move if your explanation were true reads as thinking.

Focus areas

Define numerator, denominator and window precisely
Size an experiment before anyone launches it
Turn a vague request into a measurable question

Overview

You will work alongside a team of researchers who value intellectual depth and technical precision above all else. Your impact is direct: the strategies you propose and the models you implement are the lifeblood of the firm’s trading operations. Because CFM prides itself on a culture rooted in scientific inquiry, you must be prepared to articulate your past research, defend your methodology under scrutiny, and thrive in an environment that functions more like a high-level laboratory than a traditional corporate office.

Prepare to present your past research in a seminar format. The ability to communicate complex concepts to a room of peer researchers is as critical as your technical coding ability.

The Capital Fund Management interview process

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

Technical Screening

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

Peer-to-Peer Evaluation

This round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.

What to demonstrate

Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it

How to prepare

Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither

Research Presentations

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.

Where candidates lose points

Watching an experiment daily and stopping when it crosses significance

A fixed-sample test controls type I error at one pre-declared look. Checking repeatedly and stopping at the first p < 0.05 inflates the false positive rate to roughly 0.15 to 0.20 for ten looks, and it rises further with more frequent checks, because the p-value takes a random walk that will eventually dip below the threshold under the null. The usual defences are a fixed horizon declared before launch, group-sequential boundaries such as O'Brien-Fleming that spend alpha across a planned number of looks, or always-valid confidence sequences that are correct under continuous monitoring. Compounding it, the effect size reported conditional on having crossed the threshold is biased away from zero, and the bias is larger the lower the power was, so an underpowered test that 'won' typically overstates the lift it found.

Reading a pooled rate that moved because the mix moved, not because any behaviour changed

A pooled conversion rate is a weighted average, and a shift in the weights can move it in the opposite direction to every one of its parts. A paid campaign that brings low-converting traffic drops overall signup conversion even if desktop, mobile web and app conversion each rose that week, which is Simpson's paradox and it is the single most common cause of an inexplicable dashboard move. The discipline is to decompose before explaining: recompute the rate holding last period's segment weights fixed, and compare that counterfactual to the actual, so the mix effect and the rate effect are separated numerically rather than argued about. Segment on the dimensions that actually reweight, which in this domain are almost always device_type, referrer_channel, country and new versus returning.

Naming a model class before naming the deployment constraints

Set out the latency budget, the label delay, the retraining cadence, the interpretability requirement and the number of labelled examples, then pick the model that fits them. A boosted-tree answer to a problem where each decision must be explained to the affected user is a well-executed answer to the wrong question.

SQL that silently fans out on a one-to-many join

State the grain of each table and the grain you want in the result before writing the join. Pre-aggregate the many side to the join key, or use EXISTS or a window function, and verify with a row count against COUNT(DISTINCT id) rather than trusting that the numbers look plausible.

Questions & practice

How would you optimize this algorithm to handle larger datasets?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

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

Given this toy problem, please propose a strategy for the model we should consider.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.

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?

How would you justify your choice of model for this specific dataset?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
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

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?

Sessionise an event stream with gap and midnight rules

Hard · sessionisation · vectorisation · event streams

Sessionise a raw event stream. Input: a DataFrame with visitor_id, user_id (often NULL), occurred_at_utc and event_name, unsorted, up to 5 million rows. A session breaks when the gap from that visitor's previous event exceeds 30 minutes, and is force-closed at UTC midnight so no session spans two calendar dates. A gap of exactly 30 minutes does not break. Emit one row per session with session_id, visitor_id, the user_id as of the last event in the session, started_at_utc, ended_at_utc, session_date, duration_seconds and event_count. Vectorise; do not loop per visitor.

Approach

Sort by ['visitor_id', 'occurred_at_utc', 'event_id'] once, then express the whole problem as one boolean vector: a row starts a new session when the visitor changed, or the gap exceeds 30 minutes, or the UTC date differs from the previous row's UTC date. Cumsum that vector and you have the session key.
Get the comparison direction right on the gap: the rule is strictly greater than 1800 seconds, so an event at exactly 1800 seconds continues the session. Write it as gap > pd.Timedelta(minutes=30), and make the tie a test case rather than an assumption.
Derive the midnight break from the date change, not from inserting synthetic boundary rows. A date change implies a break even when the gap is two seconds, which is precisely the force-close rule and is why the two conditions are ORed rather than one subsuming the other.
Aggregate with a single groupby on the session key: min and max of occurred_at_utc, size for event_count, and last for user_id, which is correct because the frame is already sorted so 'last' is the final event in the session. That is the identity-as-of-session-end rule.
Compute duration_seconds as (max - min).dt.total_seconds(), which makes a single-event session 0 seconds. Say so explicitly, because a downstream mean session duration is sensitive to whether single-event sessions are 0 or excluded.

Worked solution (35 min)

df = df.sort_values(['visitor_id','occurred_at_utc','event_id']).reset_index(drop=True).
new_visitor = df.visitor_id.ne(df.visitor_id.shift()); gap = df.occurred_at_utc.diff(); new_day = df.occurred_at_utc.dt.date.ne(df.occurred_at_utc.dt.date.shift()).
is_start = new_visitor | (gap > Timedelta(minutes=30)) | new_day; df['session_key'] = is_start.cumsum().
g = df.groupby('session_key'); out = g.agg(visitor_id=('visitor_id','first'), user_id=('user_id','last'), started_at_utc=('occurred_at_utc','min'), ended_at_utc=('occurred_at_utc','max'), event_count=('event_id','size')).
out['session_date'] = out.started_at_utc.dt.date; out['duration_seconds'] = (out.ended_at_utc - out.started_at_utc).dt.total_seconds(); assign session_id from the sorted index.

Expected result: One row per session where session_count equals is_start.sum(), event_count sums exactly to len(input), every session's started_at and ended_at share one UTC date, and duration_seconds is at least 0 and strictly less than 86400.

Verify it yourself

out['event_count'].sum() equals len(df); a mismatch means rows were lost to a join or a dropna.
started_at_utc.dt.date equals ended_at_utc.dt.date on every row.
For a planted visitor with events at 12:00:00 and 12:30:00 exactly, one session is emitted; move the second to 12:30:01 and two are emitted.
For a planted visitor with events at 23:59:50 and 00:00:10, two sessions are emitted on consecutive dates despite a 20-second gap.

Follow-up

Sessions are used as the denominator of a conversion rate. How does moving the inactivity gap from 30 to 45 minutes move that rate, and in which direction?
A visitor's clock is 40 minutes ahead, so their events arrive with future occurred_at values. What does your sessioniser do, and what would you rather it did?
The same person signs up mid-session on mobile and continues on desktop. How many sessions and how many users does your output show, and is that the right answer?

Rebuild sessions from raw events with a thirty-minute gap

Medium · window-functions · sessionisation · gaps-and-islands

From fct_event (event_id, visitor_id, occurred_at_utc) alone, rebuild sessions: a new session begins when the gap from that visitor's previous event exceeds 30 minutes, and every session is force-closed at UTC midnight so none spans two calendar dates. Return one row per session with visitor_id, session_start, session_end, event_count and session_date. Do not read fct_session; the point is to reproduce it. Assume duplicate occurred_at_utc values exist for the same visitor.

Approach

Get the previous timestamp per visitor with LAG(occurred_at_utc) OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY occurred_at_utc, event_id). The event_id tiebreaker is required, not stylistic: with duplicate timestamps an unstable ordering makes the boundary flags non-deterministic between runs.
Set a boundary flag when prev IS NULL, or occurred_at_utc - prev > interval '30 minutes', or occurred_at_utc::date <> prev::date. The third disjunct is the midnight rule, expressed as a date change rather than a clock comparison so it holds across any gap length.
Number the islands with SUM(flag::int) OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY occurred_at_utc, event_id ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING). Because event_id is unique the ordering is total, so no two rows are peers and RANGE UNBOUNDED PRECEDING would compute exactly the same numbers here. Write ROWS anyway: it is the half of the guard that survives someone later simplifying the ORDER BY back to occurred_at_utc alone, at which point the default RANGE frame gives every row sharing a timestamp one shared running total.
GROUP BY visitor_id and the island number, then MIN(occurred_at_utc) AS session_start, MAX(...) AS session_end, COUNT(*) AS event_count, session_start::date AS session_date.
Reconcile against fct_session on one sample day. The counts should agree except for server-emitted events carrying no client session, so a systematic difference beyond those is a bug in the gap rule or in the ordering.

Follow-up

Why 30 minutes? What does a 5-minute rule do to sessions-per-visitor and to any per-session conversion rate?
The same person uses phone then laptop. Two visitor_ids, two sessions. What breaks if you sessionise on user_id instead?
The midnight rule splits an overnight session. Which metrics does that bias, and in which direction?

Pair flow starts to completions within a thirty-minute bound

Medium · event-streams · conditional-aggregation · flow-funnel

fct_event holds event_id, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, surface, app_version. Using only rows where event_name is 'flow_started', 'flow_completed' or 'error_shown', compute the daily core-flow completion rate by surface and app_version. Numerator: distinct flow_instance_id whose flow_completed occurs within 30 minutes of its flow_started with no error_shown for the same instance in between. Denominator: distinct flow_instance_id with a flow_started that day. Report rows with a NULL flow_instance_id as a separate coverage count, not inside either side.

Approach

Collapse the stream to one row per flow_instance_id using conditional aggregation: MIN(occurred_at_utc) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_started') AS started, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_completed') AS completed, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'error_shown') AS first_error. This makes the 'first' semantics explicit and avoids a self-join entirely.
Apply the predicates on that single row: completed IS NOT NULL AND completed <= started + interval '30 minutes' AND (first_error IS NULL OR first_error > completed). Note the last clause encodes 'in between' literally, so an error surfaced after a successful completion does not disqualify the attempt.
Bucket by started::date, surface and app_version. Splitting by app_version is not decoration: a completion-rate regression is nearly always confined to one client build, and a pooled daily rate hides it behind the installed base.
Count NULL flow_instance_id rows as a separate coverage figure. They cannot be attributed to an attempt at all, so they belong in neither numerator nor denominator, and their share tells you how much of the rate is unmeasurable.
For any roll-up to week or to all surfaces, re-sum the numerator and denominator rather than averaging the daily rates.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the per-instance collapse CTE and confirm COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id).
Add the three predicates one at a time, recording how many instances each removes.
Aggregate by day, surface and app_version with FILTER on the clean-completion flag.
Compute the NULL-instance coverage count as a separate select and report it alongside.
Pick the worst day-surface-version cell and pull ten raw instances to confirm the disqualification reason.

Expected result: One row per (day, surface, app_version) with started, completed_clean and a rate bounded by 0 and 1, plus a scalar coverage count of events carrying a NULL flow_instance_id. Instances completing after 30 minutes appear in the denominator only.

Verify it yourself

No rate exceeds 1.
COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id) in the collapsed CTE.
Total started across cells equals the count of distinct flow_instance_id values carrying a flow_started event in the window.
Instances with an error strictly between start and completion are excluded from the numerator but present in the denominator.

Follow-up

occurred_at_utc is client-supplied. What do you do with an instance whose completion timestamp precedes its start?
flow_instance_id is missing on 4 percent of starts for one app_version. What can and cannot you conclude about that build?
An instance starts at 23:55 and completes at 00:04. Which day owns it, and what does the alternative do to the daily series?

Walk us through your coding process for this simulation.

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Can you walk us through your PhD research and the specific challenges you faced?

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
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.

Follow-up

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

A test that won on day four and lost by day twelve

Medium · peeking · sequential testing · multiple comparisons · winner's curse

A two-week test was checked every morning. On day four the primary metric crossed p = 0.03 and the team shipped. By day twelve, with logging still running, the estimate had fallen to a 0.2% lift at p = 0.61. The day-four deck also reported a significant 9% lift among paid_search visitors on mobile_web, one of twenty segments inspected. Explain both patterns quantitatively, say what the day-four evidence was actually worth, and specify the monitoring rule that prevents a repeat.

Approach

Price the peeking. A fixed-sample test controls type I error at one pre-declared look. Ten daily looks at a nominal 5% raise the false positive rate to roughly 0.15 to 0.20, because the running test statistic takes a random walk that will eventually cross the boundary under the null.
Price the winner's curse separately, because it is a different error. Conditioning an estimate on having crossed the threshold biases it away from zero, by a factor of roughly 3 when true power is 20% and only about 1.1 at 80% power. Day four sits at roughly 29% of planned information, which is exactly the low-power case.
Read day twelve as the better estimate rather than as a contradiction. Nothing regressed; the day-four value was an extreme draw that was selected precisely for being extreme.
Price the segment claim. Across twenty segments at a nominal 5%, at least one crosses about 64% of the time under a global null, since 1 - 0.95^20 = 0.64, and the slice that surfaces is by construction the one with the most favourable noise.
Specify the rule instead of scolding. Either fix the horizon and look once, or use group-sequential boundaries such as O'Brien-Fleming that spend almost no alpha early, or use always-valid confidence sequences that stay correct under continuous monitoring. Pre-register the small set of segments, correct across the ones tested, and treat anything found afterwards as a hypothesis needing its own powered test.

Worked solution (25 min)

Count the looks actually taken, twelve daily, and state the inflated alpha band of 0.15 to 0.20 for ten looks, rising with more.
Place day four on the information fraction, about 4/14 = 29% of planned sample, and apply the exaggeration factor for low power.
Compute 1 - 0.95^k for the number of segments actually inspected; with k = 20 this is 0.64.
Report the day-twelve interval as the estimate and say plainly that the experiment supports no effect at any size the team would ship for.
Write the rule into the experiment template: horizon and segments declared at launch, sequential boundaries if interim looks are needed at all.

Expected result: The day-four result is consistent with pure noise: ten looks inflate the false positive rate to roughly 0.15 to 0.20, and an estimate conditioned on crossing at about 29% information is exaggerated by roughly a factor of three at low power. The segment finding appears about 64% of the time across twenty slices under a global null. The supportable conclusion is a 0.2% lift whose interval covers zero.

Verify it yourself

1 - 0.95^20 = 0.6415. If your family-wise number lands near 0.05 you have computed the per-test rate instead.
The day-twelve standard error should be roughly sqrt(12/4) = 1.7 times smaller than day four's. If the interval did not narrow, sample was not accumulating and there is a second problem.
A Bonferroni threshold for twenty segments is 0.0025; check whether the mobile_web result would have survived it.

Follow-up

Under O'Brien-Fleming with five planned looks, roughly what nominal p-value would the first look have needed to stop?
The feature already shipped. What analysis can you still run, and what can it not tell you?
If mobile_web paid_search were genuinely the only affected segment, how would you design the confirmatory test and how large would it have to be?

Gross revenue churn doubled with no cancellations behind it

Hard · billing-periods · fx · revenue-churn · decomposition

Gross monthly revenue churn computed from fct_subscription_period doubled from 1.8% to 3.6% in one month. The support queue shows no rise in cancellations and renewals look normal. You have fct_subscription_period with subscription_id, account_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, mrr_cents, mrr_cents_constant_fx, seats_billed, period_status, change_reason and canceled_at_utc, plus dim_account. Decompose the 1.8-point rise into named mechanisms, size each in points of the headline, and state the remainder you cannot explain.

Approach

Reconstruct the numerator row by row and group it by change_reason before arguing about causes. A mid-period plan or seat change closes the current period row and opens a new one, so any implementation that treats a closed row as lost revenue books upgrades, downgrades and seat changes as churn; the change_reason breakdown of the numerator makes that visible in one query.
Check the recognition timestamp. Churn belongs at period_end_utc, because revenue continues until the period ends, not at canceled_at_utc when the button was pressed. Then count period_end_utc rows per month across thirteen months: annual cohorts concentrate their period ends in the month twelve months after they were signed, so a spike that repeats in the same month last year is seasonality in the book, not an event this month.
Recompute the whole numerator and denominator on mrr_cents_constant_fx. If the constant-currency figure is materially flatter, the move is an exchange-rate translation and belongs nowhere in a churn narrative.
Check period_status handling. Rows with period_status = 'past_due' are dunning, not cancellation; a status-based rule counts them as loss while a period-end rule does not, and a dunning backlog can move the number by itself.
Express every mechanism in points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual explicitly next to the month-to-month standard deviation of the prior twelve months. A decomposition without a stated remainder is a story, not an accounting.

Follow-up

Which of these mechanisms should be fixed in the metric definition and which should be reported as a genuine business fact?
How would you present a month whose churn is dominated by an annual cohort anniversary without the audience concluding the business is deteriorating?
What would you change so that an upgrade can never enter the churn numerator again, and how would you test that it worked?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who can already write the query and train the model but stalls when asked what to measure or whether a change is worth making. Metric definition and case structure come first; the technical work is kept as maintenance rather than the centre of the week.

Day 1 — Metric anatomy

For three products you use daily, write one primary metric, two input metrics that plausibly move it, and one guardrail that would catch a cheap way of moving the primary at the cost of the product.
For one of them, specify the metric precisely enough that two analysts would return the same number: numerator, denominator, unit of observation, time window, and how returning and deleted accounts are treated.
Pick a ratio metric and write what happens to it when the denominator shrinks for reasons unrelated to the numerator, with a concrete example of that happening.

Deliverable: A one-page metric tree for one product, with the primary metric written as an unambiguous spec.

Day 2 — Diagnosing a drop without guessing

Take the prompt "weekly active users fell 8 percent week over week" and write the segmentation plan before proposing any cause: platform, region, tenure cohort, acquisition channel, and whether the movement sits in the numerator or in a changed denominator.
List the instrumentation failures that manufacture fake drops (a client release that stopped firing an event, a bot filter change, a shifted date boundary or timezone) and write the query that rules out each one.
Rehearse stating the boring explanations first, seasonality and day-of-week composition, before reaching for a product cause.

Deliverable: A drop-diagnosis checklist short enough to recite from memory in under a minute.

Day 3 — Should we build it

Take a feature idea and write it as a bet: what you believe is true, what would have to be true for it to pay off, the metric that would confirm it, and the effect size that would justify the engineering cost.
Size the opportunity top-down and bottom-up, then reconcile the two numbers in writing instead of quoting whichever is friendlier.
Write the counter-metric that would make you kill the feature even if it wins on the primary metric.

Deliverable: A one-page product memo ending in a decision rather than a list of considerations.

Day 4 — The places aggregate numbers lie

Construct a Simpson's paradox numerically: two segments where the treatment wins within each segment yet loses overall, and identify the shift in segment weights that causes it.
Take a heavy right-tailed quantity such as revenue per user and write why the mean is the wrong summary, which percentile you would report instead, and what a moving mean with a stable median tells you.
Write your definition of a session for the product from day one, then name two real behaviours it misclassifies.

Deliverable: One page holding a worked Simpson's paradox table and a session definition with its two known failure cases.

Day 5 — Technical maintenance, aimed at metrics

Solve four timed SQL prompts that all end in a ratio metric, so the question of grain stays live in every answer.
Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a proportion on a small sample, and state why the normal approximation is unreliable when either np or n(1 minus p) falls below roughly 10, along with which interval you would use instead.
Take one metric from your day-one tree, write the query that computes it correctly, then write the query that computes it wrong in the most plausible way and explain how you would notice.

Deliverable: Four solved prompts plus a matched correct and plausible-wrong query for one metric.

Day 6 — Turning engineering work into data science stories

Write three project stories as situation, decision, trade-off, outcome, each carrying one number and one thing you got wrong.
For the story you will lead with, prepare an answer to "what would you do differently" that names a decision you made, not a constraint you were handed.
Practise the sentence that reframes a systems project as a question project: the question the work answered, ahead of the pipeline it shipped.

Deliverable: Three written stories with the lead story delivered aloud and timed under four minutes.

Day 7 — Mock case and gap list

Run a 40-minute mock case with someone playing a product manager who pushes back on your metric choice, and record it.
Listen back and mark every moment you proposed a solution before the success metric existed.
Rewrite those moments as the question you should have asked, and rehearse the first 90 seconds of the case until scoping comes before solving.

Deliverable: A recorded case plus a rewritten opening 90 seconds.

Rigour against a deadline

Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.

How do you handle non-stationarity in the time-series data you have worked with?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

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?

Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched

Hard · self-assessment · attribution · communication

You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you apply to your own work the causal standard you would apply to somebody else's roadmap claim. Nearly everyone who would reject 'accounts that do Y retain better' will write 'I drove a 14% increase' without noticing it is the same error with a friendlier subject.
Sort the work by the kind of evidence it can carry. The shipped experiment is the only item with a randomised estimate, so it is the only one where an effect size is defensible, and you claim the interval rather than the point estimate.
Claim the three flat experiments as decisions prevented and price them. Features not built, or built differently, on evidence, with the engineering weeks reallocated as the number somebody else can verify. A defensible null is a delivered decision and should be written as one.
Claim the definition fix as correctness, not as improvement. The old figure was overstated by a specific percentage and appeared in a specific set of recurring documents; the impact is the change it produced in the forecast built on top of it, not a change in churn itself.
Claim the dashboard on usage and displacement: distinct weekly users of it, and the ad-hoc request count for six months before against six months after. If the request log does not exist, record the claim as unverified rather than estimating it upward.
Disclaim the 14% explicitly and once. State that it cannot be separated from seasonality, other teams' launches and a pricing change, and bound your own contribution from above using the shipped experiment's interval converted into headline units.

Follow-up

Your shipped experiment's interval was +0.2pp to +1.4pp on activation. How much of the 14% can that account for, and how do you say so without undercutting yourself?
A peer in the same cycle claims the full 14%. What, if anything, do you do about it?
If you could only keep two of your three claims, which do you drop, and why that one?