Interview guides · Capital Group

Capital Group Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

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

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Capital Group, you sit at the intersection of quantitative research, software engineering, and investment management. You drive analytical initiatives that shape how one of the world's largest investment management organizations designs systematic portfolios, evaluates risk, and understands client needs. Your day-to-day work directly influences strategic decision-making by translating complex financial and behavioral data into actionable insights for stakeholders across the firm.

Ask early whether the loop includes an asynchronous take-home or a timed live case, because the two are graded on different things. A take-home is read as an artifact: the question you decided to answer, what you did about missing or malformed records, and a conclusion stated plainly enough for someone to act on. A reviewer who cannot rerun your notebook discounts the result whatever score is printed in it. Hold to the stated time box and write down what you would have done with more of it, since the follow-up round is usually a live defence of the same work.

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

This position demands a rare combination of rigorous statistical expertise, product sense, and commercial awareness. You will tackle sophisticated problems involving quantitative research, systematic portfolio construction, and large-scale data manipulation. Whether you are building predictive models, optimizing investment strategies, or setting up robust experiments to measure product and feature impact, your work must withstand the highest standards of accuracy and scrutiny.

You will collaborate closely with portfolio managers, financial analysts, and software engineers in a culture that prizes long-term thinking, collaboration, and intellectual curiosity. While the pace can be demanding and the evaluation rigorous, you will find an environment where technical excellence is deeply respected. Expect to have your assumptions challenged and your problem-solving frameworks tested as you build solutions that scale across global markets.

The Capital Group interview process

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

Recruiter Screening Call

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Technical or Video Screening

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

Onsite or Panel Loop

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

Comprehensive Panel Interview

Where a loop ends with a senior leader, that conversation is rarely another skills test. The technical signal already exists by then, so the questions tend to open up: what you would look at first, where a metric you have heard about could mislead, what you would push back on. The decision being made is scope, which in practice means level and how much you would be trusted to own unsupervised. Treating it as a formality is the usual mistake. An open question late in the day is still being scored, and a vague answer reads as someone who has not run anything themselves.

What to demonstrate

Whether your view of the business has anything specific behind it, given that you are working only from what is public and are expected to say so
Whether the scope of work you describe owning matches the scope of the role, instead of sitting a level below it
Whether you can disagree with something concrete and stay useful about it, rather than agreeing with everything said in the room
Whether your questions are ones only this person could answer, as opposed to ones the recruiter already covered

How to prepare

Build one view you could defend for two minutes using only public information: what the funnel probably looks like, which metric likely drives decisions, and where that metric could mislead. Being wrong for a stated reason survives this round; having no view does not
Write down the largest piece of work you have owned from question to decision, who else touched it, and what you decided alone, then check that it reads at the level you are interviewing for
Prepare one thing you would want changed if you joined and phrase it as a question rather than a verdict, so it opens a conversation instead of closing one

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.

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.

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.

Interpreting a change before checking data quality and logging

Spend the first pass on row volume by day, null rates, duplicate keys, and whether the step change lands on a release or tracking-migration date. A discontinuity that coincides with a deploy is an instrumentation hypothesis before it is a behavioural one.

Questions & practice

Explain the difference between parametric and non-parametric testing methods and when you would choose one over the other in risk modeling.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.

Follow-up

How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?

Cluster bootstrap for a per-session rate randomised on users

Hard · cluster bootstrap · randomisation unit · variance

An experiment randomised on user_id reports a per-session conversion rate, so sessions inside a user are correlated. Input: one row per session with user_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}. Write a cluster bootstrap from scratch: resample users with replacement within each arm, keep every session of a drawn user, recompute each arm's ratio of converted sessions to sessions, and take the difference. Return the point estimate, a 95 percent percentile interval from at least 2,000 resamples, the naive session-level interval that ignores clustering, and the ratio of their widths.

Approach

Name the estimand precisely: it is a ratio of sums, sum(converted) over sum(sessions) within an arm, not the mean of per-user rates. Those differ whenever session counts vary across users, and the ratio is what the reported metric is.
Resample the cluster, not the row. Draw n_users user ids with replacement inside each arm and take every session belonging to each draw, including duplicate draws of the same user. Keeping the user count fixed per arm rather than the session count is what preserves the sampling design.
Precompute per-user (converted_sum, session_count) once, so each resample is two vector lookups and a division rather than a repeated filter over the session frame. That turns 2,000 resamples from minutes into under a second.
Take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the 2,000 differences for the interval, and report the point estimate from the full data rather than from the bootstrap mean, since the bootstrap mean carries the resampling bias.
Compute the naive interval from the session-level binomial standard error and compare widths. The expected inflation is roughly sqrt(1 + (m-1)*rho), with m the mean sessions per user and rho the intraclass correlation of converted within users, so a computed ratio far from that value points at a bug in one of the two intervals.

Follow-up

Users average 3.4 sessions and the intraclass correlation is 0.12. What width ratio do you predict before running it, and does your bootstrap land there?
Give the delta-method standard error for this ratio and say when you would prefer it to the bootstrap.
Half the users in the treatment arm have exactly one session. What does that do to the cluster bootstrap's coverage, and how would you check it?

Permutation test for a difference in conversion rates

Medium · permutation test · resampling · inference

Write a two-sided permutation test from scratch for a difference in conversion rates, using no scipy hypothesis function. Input: a DataFrame with unit_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}, one row per randomisation unit. Compute the observed difference in proportions, then build the null distribution by reshuffling the variant labels while holding each arm's size fixed. Report the p-value as (1 + the count of permuted statistics at least as extreme in absolute value) / (B + 1) with B at least 10,000, and return the permutation distribution.

Approach

Name the null being tested: the sharp null that each unit's outcome is the same under either label. That is what licenses permuting labels, and it is stronger than the null of equal means, which matters when someone asks whether the test is valid under unequal variances.
Extract converted to a single numpy array of 0s and 1s and record n_treatment. Every permutation is then just a reshuffle of one array, and the treatment mean is the mean of the first n_treatment entries of the shuffled array.
Vectorise the B permutations with rng.permuted on a tiled 2-D array, or with argsort of a (B, n) random matrix. A Python loop calling np.random.shuffle B times is correct but roughly an order of magnitude slower and often runs past the time limit.
Use the +1 correction in both numerator and denominator. Without it a p-value of exactly 0 is reportable, which is false: the observed labelling is itself one of the permutations, so the smallest attainable p-value is 1/(B+1).
Compare the resulting p-value against a two-proportion z-test as a sanity check. At these sample sizes they should agree closely; a large divergence means the statistic or the shuffle is wrong, not that the permutation test found something subtle.

Worked solution (25 min)

y = df['converted'].to_numpy(); n_t = (df['variant'] == 'treatment').sum(); obs = y[treat_mask].mean() - y[~treat_mask].mean().
Build the null: for B draws, shuffle y and take the mean of the first n_t entries minus the mean of the rest.
p = (1 + (np.abs(null) >= abs(obs) - 1e-12).sum()) / (B + 1), with the small tolerance so exact ties count as at least as extreme.
Return obs, p and the null array; plot or describe the null to confirm it is centred at 0.

Expected result: The observed difference, a p-value in [1/(B+1), 1], and a null distribution whose mean is approximately 0 and whose standard deviation approximately matches the analytic pooled standard error sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)).

Verify it yourself

The null distribution's mean is within a few Monte Carlo standard errors of 0; if it is centred on the observed difference, the code bootstrapped instead of permuted.
The null's standard deviation agrees with the analytic pooled standard error to within a couple of percent.
The p-value agrees with a hand-computed two-proportion z-test p-value to within about 0.01 at these sample sizes.
Setting converted identical in both arms by construction yields a p-value near 1, and a planted large effect yields the floor of 1/(B+1).

Follow-up

The arms are 200 and 20,000 units. Does the permutation test stay valid, and what happens to its resolution at B = 10,000?
Give a 95 percent confidence interval for the difference. Can you get it from this permutation distribution, and if not, what would you run instead?
The randomisation unit is user_id but the outcome is per session. What breaks, and what is the fix?

How would you optimize a slow-running SQL query that joins multiple large transaction and client tables in a data warehouse?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.

Follow-up

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

This category tests your ability to extract, clean, and manipulate data efficiently using SQL and modern data stacks.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Find reactivation gaps in account paid-period history

Hard · gaps-and-islands · window-functions · subscriptions

fct_subscription_period holds account_id, subscription_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, period_status and change_reason. A mid-period plan or seat change closes one row and opens another, so a single continuous paid tenure is often many rows, and an account may hold two overlapping subscriptions. Collapse rows with period_status in ('active','past_due') into continuous tenures per account, treating gaps of three days or less as continuous. Return account_id, tenure_start, tenure_end, and for every tenure after the first, the gap in days that preceded it.

Approach

Filter to paid rows only: period_status IN ('active','past_due'). Trialing periods are not tenure, and including them turns every trial that never converted into a one-period tenure followed by a fake churn.
Order by period_start_utc and take a running maximum of all prior ends: MAX(period_end_utc) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND 1 PRECEDING). Those three columns are the only stable ordering this schema exposes, so check first that they are unique within an account; if rows tie on all three, the island numbering is order-dependent between runs and you need a real row key before the result is reproducible.
LAG on its own is wrong here because with overlapping or nested periods the immediately preceding row by start date is not the one that ends latest, so the running maximum is the part that cannot be shortcut.
Flag a new island when prior_max_end IS NULL OR period_start_utc > prior_max_end + interval '3 days', then number islands with a running SUM of the flag over the same ordering and an explicit ROWS frame.
Group to (account_id, island) taking MIN(period_start_utc) and MAX(period_end_utc), then LAG(tenure_end) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY tenure_start) to compute the preceding gap in days for every tenure after the first.
Sanity-check with change_reason, which is the only lineage this schema carries: list its distinct values first, then confirm that rows recording a plan or seat change sit inside a tenure rather than opening one, and that every tenure after the first opens on a row whose reason records a restart rather than an ordinary renewal. Do not reconcile against a churn timestamp on dim_account, which this schema does not define; and where such a column does exist, a cancellation timestamp records when the request was made and routinely sits weeks before the period it ends.

Worked solution (35 min)

Find an account with a known mid-period upgrade and dump its period rows to use as the trace case.
Check that (period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id) is unique per account, since the whole ordering rests on it.
Write the paid-rows CTE and the running MAX with the explicit frame.
Add the island flag and the running SUM, then verify the trace account yields one island.
Group to tenures and add the LAG-based gap in days.
List the distinct change_reason values, then count accounts with more than one tenure and compare against the count of accounts carrying a restart-flavoured reason anywhere in their history.

Expected result: One row per (account_id, tenure). An account with a continuous history returns a single row with a NULL preceding gap. Every non-first tenure has gap_days strictly greater than 3 by construction.

Verify it yourself

No two tenures for the same account overlap or touch within the grace window.
MIN(tenure_start) per account equals MIN(period_start_utc) per account in the filtered input.
The account with a known mid-period upgrade produces one tenure, not two.
(period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id) has no duplicates within an account; if it does, say how many accounts are affected before reading the output.
The share of accounts with more than one tenure is small; if it is most accounts, the status filter or the grace window is wrong.

Follow-up

Why three days of grace? What do 0 and 30 days each do to the count of accounts classed as reactivated?
An account runs two concurrent subscriptions for different teams. One tenure or two, and what does the revenue reader expect?
How would you turn these tenures into a monthly gross logo churn series without double-counting an account that churned and returned in the same month?

Write a query to identify top-performing client segments based on quarterly engagement metrics using conditional aggregation and ranking functions.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
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?
What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?

How would you design a comprehensive product metric framework to measure the success of a newly launched advisory tool?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

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

These questions assess your product sense and your structured approach to diagnosing unexpected business or system changes.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

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

If a core metric improves while a secondary balancing metric declines, how do you decide whether to ship the feature?

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

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

How do you account for multiple hypothesis testing when running hundreds of simultaneous feature experiments?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.

Follow-up

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

How would you design an A/B test for a new portfolio recommendation feature on our digital investor platform?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Diagnose a 50.5 to 49.5 split before reading the result

Easy · sample ratio mismatch · exposure logging · chi-square

An experiment randomised on visitor_id ran for 11 days. fct_experiment_exposure holds 104,320 control rows and 102,180 treatment rows for the experiment_id, all with is_in_analysis_population = TRUE, against a configured 50/50 split. The treatment arm shows a 3.1% relative lift in visit-to-signup conversion at p = 0.004, and the team wants to ship. Decide whether that lift can be reported, show the arithmetic behind your decision, and name the three checks you would run first on the exposure logging.

Approach

Test the split instead of eyeballing it. Chi-square goodness of fit against 103,250 expected per arm gives 2 x 1070^2 / 103,250 = 22.2 on 1 degree of freedom, p about 2.5e-6. The conventional alarm threshold is p < 0.001, so this is a sample ratio mismatch.
Treat the mismatch as invalidating, not as a caveat. The arms are no longer exchangeable, so the 3.1% lift has no causal reading and rebalancing on covariates afterwards does not restore it.
Walk the logging path in the order units flow through it: assignment service, then the exposure event fired on the treated surface, then the filters that build the analysis population. Each stage can drop one arm preferentially.
Name the three suspects this stack actually has. Exposure emitted by client code the treatment arm reaches later or not at all when its bundle errors; an extra redirect or render in one arm that loses slow connections; and a post-assignment filter (is_bot_flagged, is_internal, consent_state) that correlates with variant.
Check whether the imbalance is uniform by splitting counts on session_date, surface, app_version and device_type. A mismatch confined to one client build or to day one points at a deployment fault that can be fixed and re-run, not at a design fault.

Worked solution (15 min)

N = 206,500, expected 103,250 per arm, observed deviation 1,070, which is 0.518% of the total pushed into one arm.
Chi-square = 2 x 1070^2 / 103,250 = 22.18 on 1 df, p about 2.5e-6.
Compare with the p < 0.001 threshold and stop: the readout is void.
Re-pull the same counts grouped by session_date and app_version to localise where the rows were lost.
Deliver one line: the split is off by 1,070 visitors, a roughly one-in-400,000 event under correct randomisation, so the experiment is being fixed and re-run rather than read.

Expected result: Chi-square(1) = 22.2, p about 2.5e-6, far past the p < 0.001 mismatch threshold. The correct deliverable is an exposure-logging investigation and a re-run, not a caveated 3.1% lift.

Verify it yourself

Cross-check the statistic as a z on one arm count: under a fair split that count has SD sqrt(N/4) = sqrt(51,625) = 227 visitors, so the 1,070 deviation is 4.71 SD, and 4.71^2 = 22.2 reproduces the chi-square.
Chi-square scales linearly with N at a fixed ratio, so the same 50.518% split at N = 2,000 returns 22.18 / 103.25 = 0.21, p = 0.64. That reconciles the arithmetic and nothing more; it is not evidence that the alarm is independent of N. What rules out the large N is that the p-value is uniform under correct randomisation at every sample size, so p = 2.5e-6 is a one-in-400,000 draw whether N is 2,000 or 2,000,000. Large N buys the power to resolve a 0.5% skew; it does not manufacture one.
The mismatch p-value should be orders of magnitude smaller than the lift's p-value; if they are comparable, recheck the arithmetic.
Arm counts must sum to the total exposure rows for that experiment_id. If they do not, the analysis-population filter is already dropping rows before you looked.

Follow-up

The imbalance is entirely in one app_version on android. Can you salvage the other surfaces, and under what argument?
How would you monitor this across every running experiment without drowning in false alarms from a daily chi-square at alpha 0.05?
The missing rows turn out to be disproportionately visitors with consent_state = 'unknown'. What does that do to the estimate even after the logging bug is fixed?

Attribute a flow-completion drop to one client build

Medium · release-regression · instrumentation · staged-rollout

Core-flow completion rate on surface = 'ios', defined as distinct flow_instance_id reaching 'flow_completed' within 30 minutes of 'flow_started' with no 'error_shown' on the same id in between, fell from 78% to 71% over four days. A new iOS build began a staged rollout on day one. Using fct_event columns flow_id, flow_instance_id, app_version, event_name, user_id and occurred_at_utc, produce the completion rate per build per day, size the loss in absolute completions, and say whether the fix is a rollback. Treat the possibility that the instrumentation changed rather than the flow.

Approach

Cut the rate by app_version and day, each build against its own denominator. A pooled series during a staged rollout is a weighted average whose weights move daily, so it declines in proportion to the rollout share even when the old build is perfectly flat; confirming that proportionality is itself the evidence the regression is build-specific rather than environmental.
Test the denominator before believing the rate. Compute flow_started events per distinct user_id on each build: if the new build re-mints flow_instance_id on retry, or fails to carry the id from start to completion, the denominator inflates and the numerator falls with nothing changing for the user.
Normalise to a user-level outcome that is immune to the id question, namely completions per distinct user_id per day on each build. This is the number that says whether anyone actually failed to finish.
Check the error path: pull error_shown counts and their properties for flow_instance_id values on the new build. A genuine regression produces errors; an instrumentation break produces missing completions with no corresponding error volume, and the two prescribe different fixes.
Size the real loss as the per-user completion gap multiplied by daily users on the new build, and give the rollback recommendation conditional on the error evidence rather than on the rate.

Follow-up

The rollout is at 45% and product wants to go to 100% tomorrow. What do you say, and what would you need by when?
If the flow_instance_id is genuinely being re-minted, what is the correct historical treatment of the four affected days?
How would you have caught this on day one instead of day four?

Suggested practice checklist

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

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

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

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

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

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

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

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

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

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

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

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

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

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

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

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

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

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

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

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

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

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

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.

Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex statistical model to a non-technical stakeholder or portfolio manager.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
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 did you decide not to do, and why?

Handle a request for numbers supporting a decision already made

Hard · integrity · framing · stakeholder

A senior leader has already decided to sunset a plan tier and asks you for the analysis showing it is the right call. Accounts on that tier carry 6% of MRR at constant FX and have the highest licensed-seat utilisation in the book. The leader's support matters to your next review cycle, and the decision is being presented in four days. Deliver what you produce, what you decline to produce, and the exact sentence you will say in the meeting where the number appears on a slide.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can find the legitimate request inside an illegitimate framing instead of either complying or refusing on principle. The generic answer promises to push back; the strong one produces something genuinely useful and states its limits in the room, without ambushing anybody.
Separate the decision from the justification. Sunsetting the tier may be correct for reasons the data does not hold, such as support cost, roadmap surface area or sales motion. What you decline is a one-sided document. What you produce is the case read both ways, which also happens to be more useful to the leader.
Build the symmetric analysis: MRR at risk at constant FX, the share of affected accounts with a plausible migration path given seats_licensed and billing_term, the recovery rate assumed for that migration and where it came from, and the downside case in which high-utilisation accounts treat the sunset as a reason to re-evaluate the vendor entirely.
Surface the inconvenient fact privately and early. The highest seat utilisation in the book is a retention signal, and the leader should hold it before the room does, so they can incorporate it rather than be caught by it.
Agree the meeting sentence in advance with the leader, so that nobody is surprised. Something to the effect that the tier is 6% of MRR and its accounts are the most heavily used in the book, and that the case for sunsetting rests on cost and focus rather than on revenue. That is true, it supports the decision on its real grounds, and it stops the deck claiming the numbers endorse it.
Decide your own line before you need it: what you will not put your name to, and that the route if asked anyway is your own manager rather than a confrontation in the meeting.

Follow-up

The deck circulates with your analysis included and the downside case removed. What do you do, and by when?
What changes if the honest analysis says the sunset is clearly the wrong call?
How do you write the same memo when the leader is your skip-level and the meeting is tomorrow?

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?