Interview guides · Carolina Cat

Carolina Cat Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Carolina Cat software engineer prep on databases: indexes, query plans, and the anomalies an isolation level still permits.

The 60-second brief

At Carolina Cat, a Software Engineer—often operating within the Advanced Electrical Systems and SCADA Integration domains—plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between heavy equipment machinery and sophisticated digital monitoring systems. Beyond writing code, you build the digital infrastructure that supports industrial reliability, operational efficiency, and real-time data visibility for Carolina Cat's clients.

Prepare in one language you know well enough to debug in rather than the one you think reads best. Under a clock an unfamiliar language costs you standard-library lookups and iteration mechanics, and that time comes out of your thinking budget, not your typing budget.

Focus areas

Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors
Trace a symptom to a mechanism under load
Choose indexes from the query's access path

Overview

The position is central to Carolina Cat's work, as it directly influences how the company's equipment interacts with complex electrical grids and control systems. You will work at the intersection of hardware and software, tackling unique challenges related to field service integration and industrial automation. If you enjoy problem-solving in high-stakes environments where precision and system uptime are paramount, this role offers a distinct opportunity to drive tangible technical impact.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

Running a schema change as though the lock lasts as long as the statement

In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE that needs an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock must first wait for every open transaction touching that table, and while it waits, later queries needing a conflicting lock queue behind it rather than overtaking it. A DDL statement that would execute in milliseconds, issued while a thirty-second analytics query is open, therefore stalls all traffic on that table for thirty seconds: the outage length is set by the longest open transaction, not by the change. The defences are specific and worth knowing by name - set lock_timeout low and retry rather than queue, add columns without a volatile default so no table rewrite occurs (from version 11 a non-volatile default is a metadata-only change), build indexes with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY while accepting that it cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails, and add constraints as NOT VALID followed by a separate VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes a weaker lock.

Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have

Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.

Arguing past a hint

When the interviewer asks what happens for a particular input or floats a different data structure, stop and take it seriously; it is almost always a correction rather than idle curiosity. Talking over it converts a recoverable wrong turn into a data point about how you handle review.

Listing technologies instead of trade-offs

Name the property the design needs first, such as ordered range scans, multi-entity transactions, cheap appends, or a predictable p99, then pick something that provides it and say what it gives up in exchange. Almost any component is defensible once you state the requirement it satisfies and the one it sacrifices.

Questions & practice

Merge partitioned event streams into one ordered feed with bounded lateness

Hard · k-way merge · watermarks · out-of-order streams

The read-model service consumes 64 log partitions carrying about 4,000 events per second in total. Each partition is ordered within itself, but partitions drift by up to 30 seconds, and the activity feed must present a tenant's events in occurred_at order. Produce the merge. State its complexity, the buffer it requires in events and in bytes, what happens when one partition is idle, and what you do with an event that arrives after you have already emitted its position. Payloads average 1 KB.

Approach

Merge with a min-heap over the 64 partition heads keyed on (occurred_at, event_id): O(log P) per event and O(n log P) overall. The tie-break on event_id is what makes the output deterministic when two partitions carry the same millisecond, which matters because the feed is paginated and a non-deterministic order reorders pages under the reader.
Emitting the heap head is only correct once every partition has produced everything up to that timestamp, so the emit condition is a watermark: the minimum across partitions of the highest occurred_at seen, less the allowed lateness. Events are held until the watermark passes them, which is what turns individually ordered streams into a jointly ordered one.
Size the buffer from the lateness rather than guessing: 4,000 events per second times 30 seconds is 120,000 buffered events, and at 1 KB each about 120 MB of heap. That number is the real price of the ordering guarantee and belongs in front of whoever asked for it.
Handle the idle partition explicitly, because it fails the feed rather than corrupting it: a partition with no traffic never advances its own maximum, so the watermark freezes and output stops entirely. Either every partition emits a periodic idle marker carrying the broker's current time, or the watermark falls back to wall clock for a partition silent beyond a threshold.
Choose the late-event policy from what the projection is keyed on. The projection upserts on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and discards a version it has already applied, so a late event is safe to apply out of order and correctness never depended on the merge at all. Apply it, recompute the affected feed page, and count lateness so the 30-second budget can be re-derived from data rather than folklore.
Say what the merge does not buy: ordering is guaranteed within one aggregate by the log's partitioning, and no watermark makes the cross-aggregate order authoritative. Two events from different aggregates in the same millisecond have no true order, so the feed's order is a presentation choice that must be stable rather than correct.

Follow-up

The lateness budget is raised to five minutes. What is the new buffer, and what besides memory changes?
The consumer restarts. Where does it resume from, and what does the feed look like for the first 30 seconds?
One partition is ten minutes behind because its producer is slow. Do you stall the feed or emit without it?

Archive a resource graph without breaking live references or recursing

Medium · graph traversal · topological order · tenant isolation

Resources reference other resources within a tenant; for the largest tenant the reference table holds up to 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges. Archiving a resource must archive everything reachable from it that nothing outside the set still references, refuse when a live external referrer exists, and terminate when references form cycles, which they legitimately do. Produce the archive order and the refusal list, targeting O(V+E). Say what stops the traversal crossing a tenant boundary, and why recursion is the wrong control structure at this size.

Approach

Load the subgraph with the tenant predicate on both endpoints of the edge, not only on the side you started from. Scoping the left table alone is the classic cross-tenant leak: one mis-entered edge then pulls another tenant's resources into the traversal and, worse, into the archive.
Traverse iteratively with an explicit stack. A 2,000,000-node graph can hold a chain deep enough to exhaust a native stack in the low tens of thousands of frames, and that failure is a process crash rather than an error you can return.
Treat cycles as data rather than corruption: compute strongly connected components with Tarjan in O(V+E) using its own explicit stack, then condense. The condensation is a DAG, so a topological order over it gives the archive order, and every member of a component archives in one transaction because no order within a cycle is valid.
Decide refusals with reverse edges. A candidate is archivable only if every in-edge originates inside the candidate set, so build the transpose or count in-degrees restricted to the visited set, and emit each blocked resource with the id of the external referrer, which is the only part of the answer an operator can act on.
Store the graph as CSR rather than a map of lists: an offsets array of V+1 8-byte entries plus E 8-byte targets is about 80 MB at this size, where boxed adjacency lists cost several times that and lose cache locality on every hop.
Run Kahn over the condensation for the order in O(V+E). If the emitted count is short of the component count the condensation step itself is wrong, since a condensation cannot contain a cycle, which makes the check free.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the edge-loading query with the tenant predicate on both endpoints and state what it does with a cross-tenant edge.
Implement iterative Tarjan with an explicit stack and confirm on a three-node cycle that it emits one component of size three.
Build the transpose restricted to the visited set and mark every node with an in-edge from outside it as refused, carrying the referrer id.
Run Kahn over the condensation and verify the emitted order against the referrer-before-referenced rule.
Size the CSR arrays for 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges and compare against a boxed adjacency map.

Expected result: An iterative O(V+E) traversal over a tenant-scoped CSR subgraph, SCC condensation so cycles archive atomically as one component, a transpose-based refusal list naming the external referrer for each blocked resource, and a Kahn topological order over the condensation, with recursion replaced by an explicit stack because of graph depth rather than style.

Verify it yourself

A two-node cycle with no external referrers archives as one unit, and adding a single external referrer moves both nodes to the refusal list.
No resource appears in the archive order before something that references it, except within its own component.
A counter on edge visits matches the loaded edge count exactly, confirming each edge is traversed once.

Follow-up

The graph is read in one query and the archive writes a minute later. What can change in between, and how do you make the write safe?
The candidate set is 400,000 resources. Is that one transaction, and if not, what does a half-finished archive look like to a reader?
An edge points at a resource in another tenant. Is that a refusal, an error, or an alert?

Find overlapping job attempts and peak concurrency from lease records

Medium · sweep line · intervals · leases

A day of job_run history yields about 50,000,000 attempt records: (job_run_id, job_type, attempt, started_at, finished_at which is NULL when the worker died, lease_expires_at). Leases expire on a clock, so a job that outran its lease ran twice. Produce (a) every job_run_id whose attempts overlapped in wall-clock time and (b) the peak number of simultaneously running attempts per job_type with the minute it occurred. Target O(n log n). State how you treat a NULL finished_at and what clock skew does to your answer.

Approach

Define the interval before sorting anything: an attempt occupies [started_at, COALESCE(finished_at, lease_expires_at)). finished_at is observed and lease_expires_at is only a promise, so every attempt without a finish contributes an estimate and the whole result is a lower bound on overlap rather than an exact count.
For peak concurrency, sweep: emit 2n endpoints, sort by (timestamp, kind) with ends ordered before starts at equal timestamps, then walk the sequence maintaining a counter per job_type and record each type's maximum with its timestamp. O(n log n) dominated by the sort, O(n) space, or O(1) extra if the sort is external and the walk streams.
For overlap detection, do not compare attempts pairwise. A single global sort by (job_run_id, started_at) gives both the grouping and the order; within a group, keep the maximum end seen so far and report an overlap exactly when the next start is less than that running maximum, which is one linear pass after the sort.
Half-open intervals matter and are easy to get wrong: with closed intervals an attempt ending at the same millisecond another begins reads as concurrency two, and across 50,000,000 records that artefact swamps the real signal.
State the clock caveat: started_at and finished_at are written by different workers, so under skew of a few hundred milliseconds an apparent overlap shorter than that bound is not evidence. Filter reported overlaps by a minimum duration, or prefer timestamps written by whichever component heartbeats the lease.
Scale the sort rather than assuming it fits: the sweep emits two endpoints per attempt, so 50,000,000 records become 100,000,000 endpoints, and at roughly 24 bytes each, an 8-byte timestamp plus a 4-byte job_type plus a kind flag padded to alignment, that is about 2.4 GB of sort keys before any scratch space. Either push the ordering into the database behind an index on (job_type, started_at) or run an external merge sort in chunks; the overlap pass sorts n records rather than 2n, so it is the cheaper of the two.

Follow-up

A handler is not idempotent and you have found 400 overlapping jobs. Which of them actually caused damage, and what would you query to find out?
Peak concurrency for one job_type is 4 against a configured cap of 4. Is the cap working, or is the data hiding attempts that never started?
How would you compute both answers incrementally as records arrive rather than in a daily batch?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.

Approach

Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.
Say what a soft delete must do besides setting deleted_at: increment auth_version so existing tokens stop validating, leave resource.owner_user_id and resource_revision.actor_user_id intact, and accept that the address is retained — erasure is a different requirement answered by scrubbing the column, not by a DELETE that would break those references.

Worked solution (20 min)

Create the PostgreSQL partial unique index, insert a live row, soft delete it, and insert the same address again.
Repeat the delete-and-reinsert cycle three times and confirm three deleted rows coexist with exactly one live row.
Write the MySQL form with the discriminator, then deliberately reverse the polarity so live rows carry NULL, and show two live duplicates commit.
Attempt a second live insert on both engines and map the resulting 23505 / ER_DUP_ENTRY to the 409 the handler should return.

Expected result: PostgreSQL rejects only the second live row and admits unlimited deleted ones. MySQL behaves identically with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker) where live = 0; with the polarity reversed, two live rows commit and nothing afterwards can tell them apart.

Verify it yourself

Group live rows by (tenant_id, lower(email)) after a randomised insert/delete run — no group exceeds one.
Inserting 'User@x.test' after 'user@x.test' is rejected; if it is accepted, the case handling is in application code rather than in the index.
EXPLAIN a login lookup and confirm the partial index is chosen — it is only usable by queries that carry the deleted_at IS NULL predicate, so a query without it falls back to a scan.

Follow-up

A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?
What changes if a user may hold membership in two tenants?

Hold a per-tenant active cap against concurrent creates

Hard · write skew · isolation levels · constraints

A tenant on the standard plan may hold at most 50 resources with status='active'. The create handler runs SELECT count(*) FROM resource WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active', compares to 50, then inserts. Two creates arrive 3 ms apart on different instances and the tenant lands at 51. Name the anomaly, say whether PostgreSQL 16 READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ prevents it and why, then give an implementation that holds the cap at READ COMMITTED with the exact statements. Finally, say what changes when the cap is 'at most one running export per tenant' on job_run.

Approach

Name it: write skew. The two transactions read an overlapping set and write disjoint rows, so there is no row-level conflict for the engine to detect and each commit is individually legal.
Rule out the levels precisely. READ COMMITTED takes a fresh snapshot per statement and takes no lock on the counted rows, so both see 49. PostgreSQL's REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable reads and phantoms within the snapshot but still admits write skew, because the anomaly is not a re-read of a changed row, it is a read of a set that a concurrent transaction invalidates. Only SERIALIZABLE closes it, by tracking the read dependency and aborting one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001 — a guarantee that exists only if the application re-runs the whole transaction from the read.
Convert the set predicate into a single-row conflict: keep tenant.active_resource_count and run UPDATE tenant SET active_resource_count = active_resource_count + 1 WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND active_resource_count < 50 in the same transaction as the INSERT. Zero affected rows is the cap, returned as 409. The row lock serialises the decision at any isolation level, and contention is bounded to one tenant's row — which is also the fair-scheduling unit, unlike a global counter that would convoy every tenant behind one row.
State the cost you just took on: a counter is a second source of truth that can drift, so every path that changes status must adjust it inside the same transaction, and a periodic reconciliation has to exist, with resource_revision as the authority for what the count should have been.
For the job case the invariant is expressible per row, so let the database hold it: a partial unique index on job_run (tenant_id, job_type) WHERE status IN ('queued','running') makes a second running export unwritable and the loser takes 23505, mapped to 409. That is strictly better than a counter — no drift, no reconciliation — and it is available only because the cap is one rather than fifty.
Add the retry discipline each route demands: under SERIALIZABLE both 40001 and deadlock 40P01 are retryable and the retry must re-execute the read, while under READ COMMITTED with the counter nothing retries, because the conflict is reported to the caller rather than raised as an error.

Follow-up

A resource moves from archived back to active. Which statements change, and what breaks if the counter update and the status change land in different transactions?
The cap becomes plan-dependent and a plan can change mid-month. Where does the number 50 live, and who reads it?
How do you detect after the fact that the counter drifted, without locking the table?

Can you walk us through your most significant project and the specific technical hurdles you overcame?

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

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

How do you balance the need for rapid deployment with the necessity of long-term system stability?

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

What specific programming languages or frameworks have you used to interface with hardware components?

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Describe a situation where you had to troubleshoot a system failure under pressure; what was your process?

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
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?

Specify the outbound webhook contract a customer endpoint can verify

Medium · webhooks · hmac · at-least-once · ordering

Egress delivery sends resource.created, resource.updated and resource.archived to roughly 40k customer endpoints at about 1.5k deliveries/second, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10 second connect-plus-read timeout, at-least-once from the relay. The receiver is code you do not control, often behind a proxy that may re-encode JSON. Specify the payload envelope, how the receiver verifies authenticity and rejects replays, what ordering it may assume, how it deduplicates, which status codes it should return and what each means to us, and the retry, circuit and replay behaviour.

Approach

Send the fact, not a pointer: event_id, event_type, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, occurred_at and the payload copied from outbox_event. A receiver told only that resource 42 changed has to call back, and the call back returns a newer state than the event describes - that is precisely how a consumer applies changes out of order while believing it is following them.
Sign the exact bytes on the wire: HMAC-SHA256 over the timestamp, a separator, and the raw body, in a header, compared in constant time before the body is parsed. Instruct receivers to verify the raw bytes, never a re-serialised copy, since a proxy that reorders keys or changes whitespace invalidates a signature computed over re-encoded JSON. Reject a timestamp outside a tolerance - five minutes is typical - and keep a short seen-set of event_ids, because a capture replayed inside the tolerance still verifies.
Support key rotation by sending several signature values in one header during the overlap window and publishing that any one that verifies is sufficient. Without that rule a key rotation is a synchronised outage across every destination at once.
State the guarantee as it actually is: at-least-once and unordered, including within a single aggregate_id. The outbox is ordered per aggregate at the source, but the relay holds up to 4 requests in flight per destination and backs off each retry independently, so a version 6 delivery that needs one retry lands after a version 7 that succeeded on its first attempt. Publishing per-aggregate ordering we do not enforce is worse than publishing none, because a receiver that trusts it overwrites new state with old. Receivers deduplicate on event_id and apply conditionally - UPDATE ... WHERE aggregate_version < :incoming, or the same comparison under a row lock on the aggregate - which discards stale redeliveries and stays correct when two deliveries for one aggregate are processed at the same time. A duplicate and an out-of-order delivery then have the same outcome: no-op.
Define the response contract in the receiver's terms. 2xx means durably accepted, and accepting means writing it down - a receiver that does its processing inline inside our 10 second timeout will be retried while it is still working. 4xx is permanent and we stop. 429, 5xx and timeouts are retried with capped exponential backoff and full jitter within the per-destination concurrency cap, and a circuit opens after a run of consecutive failures and half-opens on a schedule, so a permanently dead endpoint costs one probe per interval instead of a growing queue.
Give them a recovery path that does not involve us holding a queue for everyone: a visible parked state, and a replay endpoint keyed by event_id or time range, so a receiver that was down for two hours asks for the gap on its own schedule.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the envelope fields and mark which are needed for deduplication and which for discarding a stale delivery.
Write the signature string construction and the receiver's verification steps in order, including the constant-time compare and the tolerance check.
Write the receiver's idempotent apply: dedupe on event_id, then the version-conditional write that discards stale and concurrently delivered redeliveries.
Write the status-to-action table from our side: which codes retry, which stop, and what opens the circuit.
Describe the parked state and the replay call, including what the customer must supply.

Expected result: A self-contained signed envelope, verification over raw bytes with a replay window and a seen-set, an at-least-once guarantee that states delivery is unordered even within one aggregate, a version-conditional apply, a status table that distinguishes permanent from transient, and a customer-driven replay path.

Verify it yourself

Delivering the same event twice leaves the receiver's state identical to delivering it once.
Delivering version 7 and then version 6 for one aggregate leaves version 7 applied.
A destination that always times out costs one probe per circuit interval rather than a retry queue.

Follow-up

A customer insists an event never arrived. What do you check, in order, and which table settles the argument?
A receiver cannot store a version and asks us to deliver their events in order. What would the relay have to give up to offer that, and what does one failing event then do to the rest of their stream?

One customer endpoint stalls deliveries to every other destination

Medium · bulkhead · timeouts · saturation · retry amplification

The egress service delivers about 1.5k webhooks/second across 40,000 destinations, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10-second connect-plus-read timeout. Throughput falls to 300/second, queue depth climbs, and p99 delivery latency for unaffected destinations goes from 200 ms to minutes, while the error rate barely moves. One tenant holds 900 destination rows whose URLs share a hostname that now answers in 9.5 seconds. Explain the mechanism with the arithmetic, then give the containment in the order you would apply it.

Approach

Look at saturation before errors. A flat error rate with collapsing throughput says nothing is failing, things are waiting, so the first signal to pull is in-flight request count or pool wait time rather than the error counter. This is the distinction that decides the whole investigation.
Group in-flight work by resolved host, not by destination id. The cap is keyed per destination row, so 900 rows sharing one hostname buy 3,600 concurrent slots against a single host, each held for 9.5 seconds. The bulkhead was never a bulkhead for that host, and grouping by the wrong dimension is why the dashboard looked healthy.
Do the arithmetic in both directions. Required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, so 1.5k/second at 200 ms needs about 300 in flight, which is entirely consumed by 3,600 slow slots; conversely whatever concurrency is left sustains rate equals concurrency divided by 9.5 seconds, which is the 300/second you are seeing. Matching both numbers is what promotes this from a plausible story to the mechanism.
Explain why the circuit breaker never helped. It opens on consecutive failures, and a 9.5-second response inside a 10-second timeout is a success. Slow is not failing, so an error-rate breaker cannot see this; you need a slow-call ratio, a deadline propagated from the caller's remaining budget, or a concurrency limiter.
Contain in order: park the offending host so the shared pool drains, add a per-resolved-host concurrency cap alongside the per-destination one, give slow hosts their own queue so they cannot occupy the general pool, derive the timeout from the delivery deadline rather than a round number, and check the retry policy is not tripling load on a host that is already slow. Use backoff with full jitter so retries do not resynchronise on recovery.
State the invariant you are restoring: one tenant's endpoints degrade only that tenant's deliveries. That is a property to load-test for, not to assume from a config value.

Follow-up

The host recovers to 80 ms. How long does the queue take to drain, and what does the drain do to the recovered host?
Where should the 10-second timeout number actually come from?
If that tenant had one destination row instead of 900, would the cap of 4 have saved you? What would you measure to be sure?

Suggested practice checklist

Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.

Day 1 — Coding, one pass at shallow depth

Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.

Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.

Day 2 — Design, one pass at shallow depth

Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.

Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.

Day 3 — Fundamentals and the practical rounds

Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.

Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.

Day 4 — The rounds that are about you, and the map

Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.

Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.

Day 5 — First chosen area, to the depth you skipped

Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.

Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.

Day 6 — Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed

Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.

Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.

Day 7 — Reassemble the loop

Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.

Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.

Know where your numbers came from

Bring the two or three numbers the story rests on and know how they were collected. A p99 whose timer starts inside your handler excludes the time a request spent queued, so it can sit flat while users wait longer. Give the window, the percentile and what the measurement left out, or drop the number.

Narrate an outage you owned from page to postmortem

Hard · incident response · blast radius · postmortems

Pick an incident you personally drove, ideally one where writes were affected rather than reads. In six to eight minutes: state the symptom as it first appeared on a dashboard, the blast radius you established before you knew the cause, the mitigation you applied and when, the mechanism you eventually proved, and the follow-up that would prevent a repeat. Bring numbers: error rate, tenants affected, minutes to mitigate, minutes to resolve. If you cannot name what you measured, choose a different incident.

Approach

Open on the signal rather than the cause: which metric at which percentile moved, on which service, at what time, so the listener follows the same evidence you had rather than a conclusion you already reached.
Separate mitigation from diagnosis out loud. State what you did to stop the bleeding (flag off, shed traffic, drain a lease, roll back a deploy) and say plainly that you did it before the mechanism was known, because those are two jobs with different deadlines.
Establish blast radius in countable terms: how many tenants, how many writes, and crucially whether the effect was loss or only delay. An append-only revision table or a pending outbox row means the change survived and the projection was merely behind, which is a repair rather than a data-loss incident.
Prove the mechanism instead of asserting it. Name the trace span that grew, the plan that flipped to a sequential scan, the lease that expired, plus one alternative you ruled out and the signal that stayed flat while you ruled it out.
Close on the durable fix and its cost, distinguishing what landed that week from what needed an expand-and-contract migration across several deploys, and say which of the two you actually finished.

Follow-up

What would you do differently in the first five minutes, given the same dashboard and no more information?
Which follow-up action did you deliberately not take, and why was dropping it the right call?
How did you convince yourself the mitigation was safe to apply while the cause was still unknown?

Unblock an engineer without taking the keyboard

Easy · mentoring · leases · at-least-once

A teammate has spent two days on a job handler that occasionally writes duplicate rows. They are certain the queue is delivering twice by mistake. You suspect a lease expiring under a slow handler, so the job is running concurrently with itself. Describe how you have unblocked someone in this position: what you asked before offering a hypothesis, what you showed them rather than told them, and what you left them owning. Then say what you would do if their theory turned out to be the right one.

Approach

Ask before diagnosing, and ask for things answerable from data they already have: the attempt count on the job rows that produced duplicates, the handler's observed duration against its lease expiry, and whether the duplicate rows share a natural key that a unique constraint could have caught.
Teach the shape rather than the answer. A lease cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, so a handler that outruns its lease is running twice by design, and deploys deliver the other half by killing handlers mid-run on every rollout. Both of their candidate theories produce identical duplicate rows, which is why the evidence has to come from timings rather than from argument.
Hand over a checklist they execute: a natural key on every write the handler performs so the second copy collides rather than appends, the record of intent written before any external effect, a lease heartbeat while running, and the metric that shows it working.
Keep ownership with them deliberately. Pair on the first write, then step back; if you finish it yourself you have closed one ticket and left the same person stuck on the next redelivery.
Close on the systemic gap that let two days pass, which is usually a missing dashboard for attempt counts or an undocumented at-least-once contract, and fix that rather than only the bug.

Follow-up

How would you distinguish a genuine double-delivery from a lease expiry using only the data already stored?
Their handler calls an external endpoint before recording that it did. What do you tell them to change first?
What do you do the third time the same person brings you the same class of bug?

Argue against a design, lose, and commit anyway

Medium · disagreement · service boundaries · decision records

Describe a design you argued against and lost. State the failure you predicted as a named mechanism, not a feeling about complexity: two services that would need one transaction, a projection with no rebuild path, a write path with no idempotency key. Say what evidence you brought, what the decision maker weighed instead, and what you did after the decision was made: what you instrumented, what you wrote down, and whether the prediction came true. Five minutes.

Approach

State the prediction in falsifiable form up front: the mechanism, the condition that triggers it, and the observable outcome. A prediction that cannot be checked also cannot be credited to you later.
Show the evidence you had at the time and label each piece honestly as measured, analogous, or intuition. Keeping the intuition is fine; disguising it as data is the thing that erodes your standing in the next argument.
Represent the opposing case at full strength, including the constraint you did not control: a fixed date, a team boundary, or the fact that the decision was cheap to reverse and yours was not.
Make disagree-and-commit concrete. Name the artefact you left behind so the prediction could be settled without you: the alert and its threshold, the counter on the dashboard, the decision note that recorded the trade-off and the condition that would revisit it.
Report the outcome without editing it. If the design held and your predicted mechanism never fired, say so and say what you had mis-weighted, which is more persuasive than a vindication story.

Follow-up

What threshold on that alert would have proved you right, and did anyone ever look at it?
If the same proposal arrived tomorrow with the same deadline, would you argue it the same way?
How did you behave toward the design once it shipped and started failing in a different way than you predicted?