Interview guides · Clark Associates

Clark Associates Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Practice explaining analysis before a Clark Associates data scientist interview: the recommendation, the uncertainty, the follow-ups.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Clark Associates, you play a pivotal role in transforming vast amounts of data into actionable insights that drive strategic decisions. This position is not only vital for optimizing internal processes but also for enhancing product offerings and improving customer experiences. Your work directly impacts various business functions, from supply chain management to customer service, ensuring that the organization remains competitive in the ever-evolving market.

If the team owns experimentation, expect depth past a two-sample test: minimum detectable effect and its roughly inverse-square-root dependence on sample size (holding power, significance level and variance fixed), variance reduction from pre-period covariates, interference between units, and when a sequential design is the right call.

Focus areas

Decompose a metric move by segment and mix
Define numerator, denominator and window precisely
Size an experiment before anyone launches it

Overview

In this role, you will leverage advanced analytical techniques and machine learning algorithms to solve complex problems. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams, utilizing data to influence product development and operational strategies. The unique challenges presented by Clark Associates’ diverse portfolio of products and services provide an exciting opportunity for you to contribute to meaningful projects. Expect to engage with large datasets, design experiments, and communicate findings to both technical and non-technical stakeholders, ultimately shaping the direction of the organization.

The Clark Associates interview process

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

Initial Screening

A screening call is a matching exercise run by someone who will not evaluate your statistics. They are checking that the work described on your resume is work you personally did, and that its scope matches the level the role is written for. Logistics get settled in the same half hour so nobody spends an interviewer's afternoon on a mismatch. The answer that fails is the one narrated in the plural. If every sentence is 'we built' and 'the team decided', there is nothing specific to write down about you. Name the piece that was yours, the decision you made inside it, and what changed after.

What to demonstrate

Whether the ownership implied by your resume survives one round of follow-up about who actually did which part
Whether your described scope (data size, stakeholders, what shipped) matches the seniority the role is written at
Whether timeline, location and compensation expectations make the rest of the loop worth scheduling

How to prepare

Rewrite your top three resume bullets in the first person singular, each with the decision you made and what moved afterwards, then say them out loud once so the 'we' does not return under pressure
Attach one number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where impact was never measured, say that plainly rather than inventing a figure
Settle your compensation range before the call and give it as a range with a reason behind it, such as current total comp or a competing timeline, instead of deflecting the question twice

Technical Interview

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

Behavioral Interview

Rounds of this kind usually include one question about work that did not go well, and it is the part that carries the most information. Anyone can narrate a shipped win. What the interviewer learns from a project that stalled is how you behave without a result to hide behind: whether you noticed the problem yourself, how long it took, and who you told. Answers that route the failure onto a data pipeline or a reorganisation close the topic without answering it, and the follow-up comes back to your own part.

What to demonstrate

Whether you found the error yourself or someone else found it, and how long it sat before anyone knew
What you changed afterwards, stated as a check you now run rather than a lesson you now believe
Whether the mistake you choose has real cost attached, such as a quarter of misdirected roadmap or a metric that was reported upward, instead of one that flatters you

How to prepare

Choose a failure you caught yourself and be ready to say what tipped you off. A story where someone else caught it is still usable, but you will be asked why you missed it.
Write down the check you added afterwards and where it lives now, so the correction is a concrete artefact rather than a resolution.
Rehearse saying the cost out loud. Candidates shrink the number by instinct once the interviewer is in the room.

Final Interview

Where a loop includes a partner from outside the data team, that conversation usually carries the same weight as the technical ones and gets the least preparation. The person opposite you will not follow a derivation and does not need to. They are working out whether having you involved would make their decisions better or slower. The failure mode is not being too technical. It is answering a question about a decision with a description of your method, leaving the translation to them. What they carry into the debrief is the sentence you handed them, not the analysis underneath it.

What to demonstrate

Whether a statistical result arrives as something the partner could act on, with the one caveat that would change their decision kept and the rest left out
Whether you can state what you need from their side, in their terms: instrumentation that does not exist yet, a definition they own, or a holdout they have to agree to
Whether uncertainty is given as a range someone can plan against, rather than as hedging that invites them to ignore the result
Whether you ask what decision is actually on the table before explaining anything

How to prepare

Take a result you know well and write the version for someone who stops reading after one sentence, then the three-minute version, and check the short one is not the long one with the qualifications stripped out
For a past project, list everything you asked a non-technical partner for and how you phrased it, then rewrite each ask so it names what goes unmeasured without it
Practise saying where a result does not apply, out loud, in one sentence that a partner could repeat accurately to someone else

Where candidates lose points

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

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

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.

Averaging per-user rates to produce a population rate

Decide which quantity you want: the mean of per-user ratios and the ratio of summed numerator to summed denominator are different estimands, and heavy users dominate one but not the other. For a ratio metric, aggregate numerator and denominator separately and use the delta method for its variance.

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.

Questions & practice

Write a function to calculate the mean and standard deviation of an array.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.

Follow-up

What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?

Explain the concept of overfitting and how you can prevent it.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

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?

What libraries are you familiar with for data manipulation in Python/R?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
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?

Seven-day activation rate by weekly signup cohort

Easy · cohorts · activation · date-bounds

dim_user holds user_id, account_created_at_utc, is_internal. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action. A user is activated when core-action events fall on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Return, for the last twelve complete weekly signup cohorts, the cohort week, cohort size, activated users and the activation rate. Exclude is_internal users. Every signup in the cohort week stays in the denominator, including users who never returned.

Approach

Start from dim_user as the denominator spine with is_internal = FALSE and DATE_TRUNC('week', account_created_at_utc) as the cohort key. Driving the query from the event table instead would silently condition on having events and delete the entire non-activating population.
Join fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and a per-user bound, occurred_at_utc >= u.account_created_at_utc AND occurred_at_utc < u.account_created_at_utc + interval '7 days'. The bound is correlated to each user's own signup timestamp, not a single global date range.
Aggregate per user with COUNT(DISTINCT occurred_at_utc::date) >= 2, then LEFT JOIN that back onto the spine and COALESCE the flag to FALSE so non-activators contribute a zero rather than vanishing.
Restrict the published cohorts to those whose week ended at least eight days ago. A cohort younger than that has not finished its seven-day window, so its rate is mechanically low and reads as a decline.
Roll up by summing the numerator and denominator per cohort week, and state the two-distinct-days threshold next to the number since it is a choice that re-bases the whole history if changed.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the cohort spine and confirm its total equals the count of non-internal signups in the date range.
Write the per-user distinct-active-days CTE with both interval bounds and inspect a handful of users manually.
LEFT JOIN, COALESCE the flag, aggregate to cohort week.
Apply the eight-day publication lag and drop the incomplete cohort.
Re-run with a closed upper bound (<= +7 days) and note how many users change state, to show the boundary is doing work.

Expected result: Twelve rows, one per cohort week, each with cohort_size, activated and rate. Cohort sizes sum to the total non-internal signup count across those twelve weeks. No cohort is younger than eight days.

Verify it yourself

activated is never greater than cohort_size in any row.
A user with three core actions on a single day is not counted as activated.
Removing the LEFT JOIN in favour of an inner join raises every rate, which demonstrates the denominator was being conditioned on survival.
Cohort sizes sum to an independent COUNT(*) over dim_user for the same range.

Follow-up

Why two distinct days rather than one event? What happens to the published history if someone changes it to three?
Invited seats and SSO-provisioned users get an account_created_at_utc at provisioning and may never sign in. Should they be in this denominator?
The rate rose 3 points this week. What do you check before believing it?

Given a dataset on customer purchases, how would you identify trends and insights?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you prioritize multiple projects with tight deadlines?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

Follow-up

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

If tasked with improving a product's user engagement, what data would you analyze?

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?

Describe your thought process when faced with an ambiguous problem.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you design an A/B test to evaluate a new feature?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.

Follow-up

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

What statistical methods do you prefer for data analysis, and why?

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?

Reminder volume where the guardrail opposes the primary metric

Medium · engagement · guardrails · trade-offs

The growth team proposes tripling weekly reminder email volume. The north star is weekly active accounts completing a core action, counted on account_id from fct_event (is_core_action, account_id, occurred_at_utc, surface). Its stated guardrail is week-over-week repeat rate together with notification opt-out and unsubscribe rates. Reminders will move the primary up and the guardrail down, by design, and both effects are real. Define the decision rule before the test runs: what magnitudes make this a ship and what makes it a stop. Deliverable: the rule, including the exchange rate you are using between the two quantities.

Approach

Name the conflict precisely rather than calling it a balance: the reminder buys one week of an account returning and spends permission to contact that account, and permission is not renewable, so the two quantities are not comparable as percentage points.
Put both sides into one unit before arguing about thresholds. Value the primary gain as incremental core-action weeks over the horizon; value an opt-out as the forgone email-driven active weeks over that account's remaining expected lifetime.
Read opt-out as a stock, not a flow: accumulate it over the test, because a weekly opt-out rate that looks small is a cumulative curve that only ever rises within a fixed set of contactable accounts.
Run long enough for the novelty to decay and use the late number in the trade: compare week-1 lift with week-4 lift, state the decay you observed, and refuse to price the decision on a week-1 read.
Write the outcome as two numbers and a default action, including what happens when the result lands between them — hold and test a smaller volume increment rather than shipping on ambiguity.

Worked solution (30 min)

Measure the starting stock: current opt-out and unsubscribe rate per 1,000 contactable accounts, and the share of weekly active accounts whose session began from referrer_channel = 'email'.
Estimate the two effects separately over four weeks: incremental weekly active accounts per 1,000 extra sends, and incremental cumulative opt-outs per 1,000 extra sends.
Convert opt-outs into forgone active weeks: email-driven active weeks per account per year multiplied by remaining expected account lifetime, and set that against the incremental active weeks bought.
Compare week-1 with week-4 lift, state the decay rate, and carry the week-4 figure into the trade.
Write the rule as two thresholds plus a default action for the middle case.

Expected result: A written ship/stop rule containing a numeric exchange rate between one incremental weekly active account and one opt-out, derived from an observed lifetime and an observed decay rather than asserted.

Verify it yourself

The cumulative opt-out curve within a fixed set of contactable accounts must be non-decreasing. A dip means the denominator is being recomputed each week and the metric is not a stock.
Week-4 incremental lift should be materially below week-1. If it is not, either the horizon is too short to see decay or the arms are contaminated by cross-sends.
Repeat rate must be computed on the same accounts across consecutive weeks, not on the weekly active set, whose composition changes every week by construction.

Follow-up

Opt-out is flat but week-over-week repeat rate falls. What is the most likely mechanism, and does it change the decision?
You do not have a year of data to estimate remaining account lifetime. What do you substitute, and how do you keep the answer honest about that?
Does randomising on account rather than on user change either the readout or the size of the test?

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

Roughly 90 minutes a night on weekdays with one longer weekend block. The plan deliberately cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that finishing one thing a night beats half-starting four.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and set a baseline

Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list for everything else and keep it visible all week.
Take one 20-minute SQL prompt and one 10-minute metric question cold, and write the single sentence that says what blocked each attempt, since that sentence is what decides which two topics get the most evenings.
Set the week's one rule: one problem finished to completion every night, including the night you only have 40 minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with an explicit not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Day 2 — One query pattern, written three times

Choose the single pattern most likely to appear (a cohort retention grid, or a funnel counted by user) and write it three times from a blank file rather than editing the previous attempt.
On the third attempt, write the grain of every CTE as a comment before writing its body.
Stop at 90 minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix with another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent versions of the same query plus a note on what changed between them.

Day 3 — Only the statistics you will be asked to defend

Write, in under 200 words, how you would decide whether a difference between two groups is real: the test, its assumptions, and what you would switch to when an assumption fails.
Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a difference in proportions by hand on realistic numbers, then write in one sentence what changes if the two samples are paired rather than independent.
Write your answer to "what does a p-value mean", check it against a definition, and delete the version that describes it as the probability the hypothesis is true.

Deliverable: A 200-word written answer and one hand-computed interval you can reproduce under pressure.

Day 4 — One case, and the assumptions holding it up

Answer one product case aloud in 20 minutes with a recording running, then listen back with a pen and mark every claim you asserted without saying what it rested on: an assumed user behaviour, an assumed data source, an assumed baseline rate, an assumed grain.
Pick the three assumptions the recommendation actually depends on, write how you would check each one against data, and say which one being wrong would flip the recommendation rather than merely weaken it.
Write the four-step structure you used onto a card small enough to hold in working memory when you are nervous.

Deliverable: One recording, three load-bearing assumptions each with a written check, and a four-step structure card.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

Write a 90-second version and a four-minute version of your main project, and time both out loud rather than reading them.
Prepare answers to the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
Put one number in the first sentence and be able to say exactly where that number came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Day 6 — The one full rehearsal, in a longer weekend block

Run a 60-minute mock covering query work, a case and a behavioural question in a single sitting with no breaks, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Day 7 — Taper

Write the 20-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning of the interview: one query you can already write from a blank file, one metric you can define out loud, and nothing you have never seen before.
Re-read only your own notes from this week, and open no new material.
Write down the logistics: the tool you will be asked to work in, whether lookups are allowed, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the case structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

The project you argued against

Saying no well is a senior skill and it is rarely rehearsed. Think of a time you told someone their analysis was not worth doing, or that the experiment could not answer their question at the sample size available. Explain what you offered instead. Refusal without an alternative reads as obstruction rather than judgement.

How do you handle missing data in a dataset?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

What did you decide not to do, and why?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Disagree with a product manager's roadmap claim using data

Medium · causal inference · selection bias · stakeholder

A product manager proposes building a feature on the argument that accounts connecting an integration in week one retain three times better at week four. The figure is correctly computed from dim_user and fct_event, and it has already been shown to leadership. You have one scheduled 1:1 before the roadmap locks. Deliver the specific analysis you would run to test whether the relationship is causal, the result that would change your own mind, and how you open the conversation so that the PM is not put in the position of defending the number in public.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can separate a number being right from an inference being wrong, and do it without costing the PM face. The generic answer recites that correlation is not causation; the strong one names the specific confound and proposes the cheapest design that could distinguish the explanations.
State the alternative concretely. Accounts that connect an integration in week one are accounts that already have a workflow and a technical owner, so week-one intent plausibly drives both the connection and week-four retention. The selection is on intent, which no amount of post-hoc adjustment observes.
Order the discriminating analyses by cost. First, condition on pre-connection activity by comparing retention within strata of week-one core-action count, which removes the crude version of the confound but not unobserved intent. Second, look for variation in integration availability that was unrelated to intent, such as a staggered release or an outage window. Third, an encouragement design that randomises a prompt to connect and reads the intent-to-treat effect on week-four retention, which is the only version that identifies an effect.
Run the timing check, because it is nearly free and it is the most persuasive single piece of evidence. If the retention advantage among connectors is already visible before any of them connected, the causal story is largely finished.
Pre-commit to what would change your mind and say it before you show anything: if the gap survives stratification and the encouragement arm moves week-four retention at all, the feature has a case and you will say so.
Open the 1:1 by agreeing with the true part, that the correlation is real and worth chasing, then ask what effect size the roadmap plan assumes. That makes the size of the claim the topic instead of its authorship.

Follow-up

The encouragement test needs six weeks and the roadmap locks in two. What do you recommend in the interim?
Stratifying on week-one activity closes half the gap. What do you conclude, and what do you still not know?
How would you word this in the roadmap document so the PM's original number is reframed rather than deleted?

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?