Interview guides · Coforge

Coforge Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Coforge software engineer prep on operations: decide what you would need to see to know a release is going wrong.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Coforge, you sit at the core of technology-driven business transformation. Coforge delivers enterprise software solutions to major industry domains, including airlines, travel, financial services, and insurance. In this role, you will be responsible for designing, developing, and maintaining high-availability software applications that power business-critical operations for global enterprises.

The title spans product, platform and infrastructure work, and which of those the seat actually is decides whether design or algorithms carries more weight in your preparation. The posting rarely settles it; what the team is on call for usually does.

Focus areas

Make every write idempotent under client retries
Keep money in integer minor units
Build at-least-once pipelines with explicit deduplication horizons

Overview

You will work on modernizing legacy architectures, building modular backend systems, creating responsive frontends, and deploying scalable microservices on cloud infrastructure. Rather than working in isolation, your daily efforts directly impact the reliability and efficiency of client platforms serving millions of end-users worldwide.

What makes the Software Engineer position at Coforge particularly engaging is the balance between deep technical mastery and real-world domain application. You will solve technical challenges around performance optimization, concurrency, data modeling, and API integration while working in agile client-facing teams.

The Coforge interview process

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

Screening Process

Because the format is not fixed, the first job in the room is classification. Listen to the opening question and decide what it is: a probe into work you have already described, a fresh problem to solve now, or a conversation about how you operate. Each wants a different register, and the common failure is forcing a rehearsed structure onto a question that did not ask for it. Running a full design ritual on a ten-minute debugging question reads as not listening. When you cannot tell which it is, ask how long they want to spend and answer at that depth.

What to demonstrate

Whether the shape of your answer matches the question, so a yes-or-no gets answered before it is justified and an open prompt gets a direction before a detour
Whether you check how much depth is wanted instead of deciding for them, and whether you stop when the answer is complete rather than continuing until someone interrupts
Whether you can be redirected in the middle of an answer without restarting it from the beginning
Whether a question outside your experience gets an honest boundary followed by reasoning from what you do know, instead of a confident answer with nothing behind it

How to prepare

Rehearse one project at three lengths, roughly thirty seconds, three minutes, and a full walkthrough at the depth of a design review, and practise switching between them when someone interrupts mid-telling
Have someone ask you five questions of deliberately mixed type in one sitting without telling you the types, and score only whether you identified each one correctly before you started answering
Draft the sentence you will use to check depth, along the lines of asking whether the short version is useful here or they want the detail, and use it in a real conversation this week so the day of the round is not its first outing

Technical Interviews

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Behavioral Interview

Many of these questions are about something that went wrong, and the grading sits mostly in the hours after you knew. Who found out first, whether that was you or an alert or a user, how long it took you to say it out loud, and whether the people who needed the news got it while they could still act on it. Engineers under-tell this part because it feels like confessing. The pattern it is looking for is the opposite: the quiet fix, an incident absorbed without telling anyone, after which nothing changed and the same failure is still available.

What to demonstrate

How the problem was found, and whether that route was one you had built or one that happened to you, since a user reporting it first means your instrumentation did not cover that failure
Whether time-to-detect and time-to-tell are separate numbers in your account and whether you know both, because a fast fix that nobody heard about until the retro is a different answer from a slow one that was announced immediately
Whether the resolution left something durable behind, a check that fires or a default that changed, rather than depending on people remembering to be careful
Whether you can say what the failure cost without either inflating it or waving it away

How to prepare

Reconstruct one incident you were part of as a timeline with clock times: first bad request, first signal, first person who knew, first message outside the team, mitigation, permanent fix. The gaps between those entries are what gets asked about
Look up the configuration of the signal that caught it, including its evaluation window and threshold. An alert defined on a five-minute aggregate cannot fire until the condition holds across that window, which puts a floor under time-to-detect that has nothing to do with how severe the failure was. Be able to say what that floor was and whether anyone had chosen it deliberately
Prepare one story where you escalated early and the severity turned out to be smaller than you thought, including what it cost the people you pulled in. Without it, every answer you give about raising alarms is unfalsifiable

HR Discussion

You cannot drill a format you do not know, so put the preparation into material that travels. Three pieces of your own work, each rehearsed until you can take a follow-up you did not anticipate, will carry a conversation or a code walkthrough equally well. Specificity is what separates that from filler. A number needs its definition before it means anything: a p99 is over some window and measured at some hop, and a server-side figure excludes the queueing and network time a client would see. The number you cannot qualify is the one to leave out.

What to demonstrate

Whether your examples carry detail only someone who did the work would hold, such as what the binding constraint actually was, which alternative you rejected and why it was worse, and what you measured on each side of the change
Whether a number survives one follow-up, meaning you can say what it was measured over and whether it moved because of your change or merely alongside it
Whether a failure is described with the specific change that followed it, rather than a lesson stated in general terms
Whether your part in a team effort is stated accurately, including what other people did

How to prepare

Write a page on each of three projects covering the constraint, the option you rejected, the measurement before and after, and what went wrong. Cut any line you cannot take a follow-up on, since you are writing the parts you will be pressed on rather than a summary.
Recover the real figures while you still have access: request volume, data size, latency with its percentile and window, team size, timeline. Note where each came from, whether a dashboard, a design document or memory, and mark the estimates so you can say which they are out loud.
Take your weakest project story to someone who works in a different area and have them ask why four times in succession. The point where you run out of answer is the part to go and re-read before the round.

Where candidates lose points

Paginating a growing table with limit and offset

Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.

Checking a quota with a select and then writing

Under read-committed isolation, two concurrent transactions both observe a count below the limit and both insert, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency. Repeatable read does not rescue it either: it provides a stable snapshot, and this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. The options are serialisable isolation, which detects the conflict and aborts one transaction with a serialisation failure and therefore obliges the caller to retry; a single statement with the predicate inside the write; or a constraint that makes the surplus insert fail outright. The reason this pattern survives review is that it is correct in every test that runs one request at a time.

Writing code before the input contract is pinned down

Before the first line, state the types, the size bounds, whether duplicates, negatives or an empty input are possible, whether the input is sorted, whether you may mutate it, and what the function returns when nothing matches. Every one of those answers changes the code, and discovering one at minute twenty costs a rewrite you no longer have time for.

Starting work without saying what you are about to spend time on

State the plan before executing it: the approach, roughly how long it will take, and what you intend to leave hand-waved. That gives the interviewer a chance to redirect you in ten seconds rather than watching you spend fifteen minutes on the wrong sub-problem.

Questions & practice

Write a function to check whether a given string is a palindrome or count the number of vowels in a string.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

Follow-up

How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

How do you find the frequency of each character in a string using a HashMap?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Given an array of integers, implement a program to generate the Fibonacci series or identify prime numbers using efficient loops.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

Easy · parsing · hmac · constant-time-compare · replay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach

Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.

Worked solution (15 min)

Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
Implement the parser to return {t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missing t, a duplicate t, any v1 that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs.
Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsed v1, and OR the results with no early exit.
Test with a valid signature; the same body with t moved 400 seconds into the past; the same body with t 400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknown v2= alongside a valid v1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.

Expected result: The valid case accepts. Both out-of-tolerance cases reject, including the future one. The unknown v2 field is ignored and the v1 still verifies. The re-serialised body fails, which is correct and is exactly why the raw bytes must be retained.

Verify it yourself

Timing the comparison over 10,000 mismatching signatures that differ at the first character versus the last shows no separation you can measure.
Removing t from the MAC input makes an old captured body with its original signature pass. Write that test, watch it pass, then put t back.
Every rejection except the signature mismatch itself returns before an HMAC is computed.

Follow-up

The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Model credential revocation so history survives the delete

Easy · soft delete · partial indexes · check constraints · audit history

tenant_api_key stores key_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, name, key_prefix, secret_hash, scopes text[], status (active, revoked, expired, compromised), auth_version, created_at, expires_at, last_used_at, revoked_at, revoked_reason. Rotation inserts a new row and revocation never deletes, because an incident review asks which credential served a request last quarter. Write the constraints that enforce: a label is unique only among a tenant's live keys, revoked_at and status can never disagree, and scopes is never empty. Then write the authentication lookup predicate, and name one column in this table that must stay out of it.

Approach

Reach for a partial unique index rather than a plain UNIQUE: create unique index on tenant_api_key (tenant_id, name) where revoked_at is null. Any number of revoked rows may share a label, the live namespace stays unique per tenant, and the revoked majority is not in the index at all, so it stays small on a table that only grows.
Tie the nullable timestamp to the enum so the two cannot drift: check ((revoked_at is not null) = (status in ('revoked','compromised'))) and check ((revoked_at is null) = (revoked_reason is null)). A revocation that records no reason is the one an incident review cannot use.
Write the emptiness check as check (cardinality(scopes) > 0), not array_length(scopes, 1) > 0. array_length returns NULL for an empty array, a CHECK constraint passes when its expression is NULL, so the array_length version accepts exactly the value it was written to reject.
Make the lookup a single index probe with every liveness condition inside it: where secret_hash = $1 and revoked_at is null and (expires_at is null or expires_at > now()) and auth_version = $2, backed by a unique index on secret_hash. Nothing is filtered in application code, so there is no path that forgets a clause.
Keep last_used_at out of that predicate. It is written asynchronously and is allowed to lag by a minute, so it is a usage signal; feeding it into an authorisation decision makes the decision depend on a write that may be late, batched away or lost.
Flag the modelling smell while you are here: expired is derivable from expires_at < now(), so storing it as a status obliges a job to keep it true and guarantees the column is wrong between the expiry instant and that job's next run. Derive it in the predicate; keep the stored status for states that are decisions rather than clock readings.

Worked solution (20 min)

Create the table with all three constraints on a scratch database and insert two revoked rows sharing (tenant_id, name); the partial index should accept both.
Insert a second live row with that same name and confirm the violation names the partial index.
Run update tenant_api_key set revoked_at = now() leaving status = 'active' and confirm the CHECK rejects it; then try insert ... scopes = '{}' against both the cardinality and the array_length forms and note that only one rejects it.
Run explain (analyze, buffers) on the lookup predicate for a live key and confirm an index scan on secret_hash with rows removed by filter equal to zero.

Expected result: A partial unique index on (tenant_id, name) where revoked_at is null; check ((revoked_at is not null) = (status in ('revoked','compromised'))); check ((revoked_at is null) = (revoked_reason is null)); check (cardinality(scopes) > 0); a single-probe lookup on secret_hash plus revoked_at, expires_at and auth_version; last_used_at excluded, with a note that 'expired' should be derived rather than stored.

Verify it yourself

Two revoked keys with the same name insert cleanly; a second live one does not.
The array_length form of the emptiness check accepts an empty array and the cardinality form rejects it.
No statement anywhere in the design deletes or updates a revoked row.
Revoking a key touches exactly one row and takes effect on the next lookup with no application-side filtering.

Follow-up

Rotation issues a replacement while the old key stays live for a 30-day overlap. What does the uniqueness rule become, and what does the UI show to tell two same-named keys apart?
A password reset bumps the principal's auth_version. No row in this table changed. How does the next request fail, and what query counts how many keys that bump just killed?
A key turns up in a public repository. Which columns let you find it, and what do you write to the row?

Paginate a tenant's delivery export without skipping rows

Easy · keyset pagination · indexing · multi-tenancy

A customer exports webhook_delivery: delivery_id (bigint identity), subscription_id, tenant_id, event_id, status, attempt_count, next_attempt_at, created_at, delivered_at, updated_at. The endpoint runs select ... where tenant_id = $1 order by created_at desc limit 100 offset $2, and customers report rows missing from exports taken while new deliveries are being inserted. Write the replacement query and the index that supports it, paging a tenant's deliveries newest first at constant cost per page. State why updated_at cannot be the cursor column.

Approach

Name the defect precisely. OFFSET is a position in a result set that is recomputed on every request, so a row inserted ahead of the window shifts everything back by one and the next page starts after a row the client never received. Nothing errors and no identifier gap appears, so the loss is silent.
Replace the position with a value predicate over a stable, unique, indexed ordering: where tenant_id = $1 and (created_at, delivery_id) < ($2, $3) order by created_at desc, delivery_id desc limit 100. The row comparison is load-bearing: created_at alone is not unique, so ties straddling a page boundary are dropped or repeated, which is the same bug in a smaller window.
Index (tenant_id, created_at, delivery_id). PostgreSQL scans a btree in either direction, so an all-DESC ORDER BY is served by an ASC index read backwards and no DESC modifiers are needed; they only matter when the ORDER BY mixes directions. Confirm the plan has no Sort node above the index scan, or the LIMIT stops being an early exit.
Price both forms: keyset is one index descent plus 100 adjacent leaf entries per page, constant regardless of depth, while OFFSET still produces and discards every skipped row, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table goes from milliseconds to seconds.
Rule out updated_at as the cursor from the precondition, not from taste: a cursor column must never change value for a row already paged past. updated_at moves on every delivery attempt, so a row the client already emitted re-enters a later page and is exported twice. created_at and delivery_id are immutable, which is the whole qualification.

Follow-up

The client wants a snapshot as of one instant rather than a live tail. Compare a repeatable-read transaction held open, an added created_at <= $snapshot bound, and a materialised export table.
A retention job deletes deliveries older than 90 days. What does a client mid-walk see, and does keyset pagination help at all?
The customer wants to resume an export from yesterday's last cursor. What must be true of the cursor for that to be safe?

What are the major feature additions in Java 8, specifically focusing on the Stream API, Lambda expressions, and the Optional class?

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.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

Explain the four core principles of OOP and describe the practical difference between abstraction and encapsulation.

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

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

Webhook fan-out with per-endpoint isolation and backoff

Medium · fan-out · backpressure · circuit breaker · ordering

One domain event fans out to every matching subscription, producing a webhook_delivery row per (subscription_id, event_id, redelivery_seq). Peak unique event rate is 20k/second; attempts run five to ten times that once fan-out and retries are counted. One customer endpoint has returned 503 for six hours and its backlog holds days of events; every other customer must be unaffected. Design the delivery system: how a worker claims work, the backoff schedule, the per-endpoint circuit breaker, the queue partitioning, and whether you offer ordering per subscription. State the delivery guarantee in one sentence.

Approach

State the guarantee first, because it determines the rest: at-least-once with a stable event_id, and the consumer documented as responsible for idempotency. Exactly-once over HTTP is not deliverable - the 200 can be lost after the customer has already committed - so any design that promises it is either lying or is really offering at-most-once.
Partition work per subscription rather than into one global pool, with a concurrency cap per subscription. With a shared pool, the endpoint that has been dead for six hours consumes workers on retries that will fail, and every other customer's delivery latency rises: head-of-line blocking across tenants is the exact failure being designed against here.
Claim by compare-and-set with a fencing token: UPDATE webhook_delivery SET status = 'in_flight', lease_token = $new, leased_until = now() + interval '60 seconds' WHERE delivery_id = $1 AND status IN ('pending','failed_retryable') AND (leased_until IS NULL OR leased_until < now()), and make the terminal write carry AND lease_token = $new so a paused worker's late write is rejected rather than overwriting a newer attempt. Find due work through the partial index on next_attempt_at WHERE status IN ('pending','failed_retryable'), so the scan is proportional to live rows rather than to the terminal rows that outnumber them by orders of magnitude.
Use full jitter: sleep uniformly in [0, min(cap, base x 2^(attempt-1))]. Plain exponential backoff hands a recovering endpoint its entire backlog as one synchronised herd and knocks it over again; full jitter de-correlates it. Then check the schedule actually spans the retention you promise - with base 1 s and a 3,600 s cap, twenty attempts have an expected total elapsed time of only about 4.6 hours, so a twenty-four-hour promise needs roughly fifty-nine attempts or a larger cap.
Trip a circuit per endpoint on consecutive failures or a failure ratio over a rolling window: stop dispatching, push next_attempt_at out or mark new deliveries dropped_circuit_open, and half-open with exactly one probe rather than a batch. Bound the backlog explicitly with a per-subscription cap or retention, and decide in advance whether a recovered endpoint receives six hours of events at full rate or a pointer telling it to fetch what it missed.
Offer ordering only as an opt-in mode of one in-flight attempt per subscription, and price it honestly: with parallel attempts a retried event overtakes a newer one, so ordering requires serialisation, and serialisation means one slow endpoint blocks its own queue entirely. That converts a shared problem into that customer's own problem, which is the right place for it, but it is still a real cost.

Worked solution (35 min)

Compute the attempt rate: 20k unique events/second x mean fan-out x retry multiplier, and size worker pools and the per-subscription concurrency cap from it.
Write the claim statement and the terminal write, and point at the clause that rejects a resumed worker's stale write.
Tabulate the backoff for attempts 1 to 20 with base 1 s and cap 3,600 s, take the expected value of each full-jitter sleep as half its ceiling, and sum to get total expected elapsed coverage.
Decide the policy for a subscription down six hours: events buffered, bytes held, and what the customer actually receives when it returns.

Expected result: At-least-once with a stable event_id; per-subscription lanes with a concurrency cap; lease-and-fence claiming; full jitter whose schedule matches the retention promised - with base 1 s and a one-hour cap, twenty attempts covers only about 4.6 hours of expected elapsed time, so twenty-four hours needs roughly fifty-nine attempts or a larger cap; a per-endpoint breaker with a single half-open probe; ordering offered only as opt-in single-in-flight with head-of-line blocking named as its price.

Verify it yourself

Sum the expected sleeps in your schedule and compare against the retention window you promised the customer. If the two numbers disagree, one of them is wrong and it is usually the promise.
Execute the terminal write with a stale lease_token and confirm it affects zero rows. If it succeeds, the lease was doing the work alone and the token is decorative.
The dead endpoint's backlog must not be visible in any queue another subscription's workers poll. If one index scan serves all subscriptions, the isolation is nominal.

Follow-up

The endpoint recovers. Does it receive six hours of events at full rate, and what does that do to it?
Trace the exact code path by which an event belonging to one tenant could be signed and sent to another tenant's endpoint.
A customer insists they never received an event your row marks delivered. What evidence do you have, and what does payload_digest let you prove?

A rare job-run overwrite that logging makes disappear

Hard · fencing tokens · leases · concurrency

About one job run in fifty thousand records billable_seconds matching no observed sandbox lifetime, and a few rows show worker_id changing after finished_at was already set. It does not reproduce: debug logging around the terminal write made it vanish for two weeks before it returned. Runs last from 200 ms to 30 minutes, the lease is 60 seconds and is renewed while a run executes. Give an ordered checklist, the mechanism, and a fix that makes the illegal write impossible rather than merely rarer.

Approach

Mine the evidence instead of chasing a repro: select rows where updated_at is later than finished_at, or where a terminal status was written twice, and join them to attempt history to recover both writer identities. The defect has already happened tens of times and the rows are the recording.
State the signature before measuring it. If the cause is a lease that expired while the original worker was stalled, affected runs should cluster where the gap between the last renewal and the terminal write exceeds the lease, and should correlate with worker pause metrics rather than with workload shape.
Read the disappearance honestly. Logging inside the window changed the timing and lowered the probability; it is evidence about how narrow the window is, not a fix. Reproduce by widening the window on purpose, shortening the lease and injecting a pause between sandbox exit and the terminal write, rather than by adding more instrumentation.
Name the mechanism precisely: the lease expires during a stall such as a long garbage-collection pause or a brief partition, the run is re-dispatched, and the original worker then wakes and writes its terminal state over the new attempt's row. A lease alone cannot stop this, because the check and the write are separated by the stall.
Fix by fencing the write itself: UPDATE job_run SET status = $2, finished_at = $3, billable_seconds = $4 WHERE run_id = $1 AND status = 'running' AND lease_token = $5, with zero rows affected interpreted as having been fenced rather than as success. The token lives on the row so the store arbitrates, not the worker's memory.
Keep the state machine honest: a retry inserts a new row pointing at parent_run_id rather than resetting the old one, and a run whose worker vanished terminates as lost with billable_seconds null, because recording failure asserts an outcome nobody observed and then bills and retries on that assertion.

Follow-up

The supervisor also emits a usage event on completion. What does the fenced worker do about the event it already emitted, and how does metering absorb it?
Lease renewal is itself a network call. What happens when a renewal times out, and how does the worker decide whether it still holds the lease?
Why is lengthening the lease past the longest legitimate run the wrong lever, and what breaks if you do it anyway?

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.

Risky changes and the reversal path

For anything that touched live traffic, be ready to say how you would have undone it: a flag, a staged rollout, dual writes with the old path still authoritative. Once the old column is dropped or the source rows are overwritten there is no reverse, so name what you kept a copy of and for how long.

How do you handle tight project deadlines or sudden requirement changes requested by external stakeholders or clients?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Walk me through the high-level architecture of your most recent project and explain your personal technical contributions.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Why do you want to build your career at Coforge, and how do your technical skills align with our project domain focus?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?