Interview guides · Cognizant

Cognizant Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Cognizant data scientist prep: probability, sampling distributions, and stating the assumption behind every test you run.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist within the AI and Analytics practice at Cognizant, you serve as a critical bridge between complex data architecture and actionable business intelligence. You are responsible for designing, building, and deploying advanced analytical models that solve real-world problems for a global portfolio of clients. Your work directly influences how organizations optimize operations, predict market trends, and implement scalable machine learning solutions across diverse industry verticals.

Coding rounds for this role are usually data-manipulation shaped rather than data-structure shaped: group-bys, joins, time windows, ranking within a partition. Confirm the format before spending a week on graph traversal.

Focus areas

Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
Size an experiment before anyone launches it
Define numerator, denominator and window precisely

Overview

This role is both technically demanding and strategically significant. You will often operate in high-stakes, client-facing environments where your ability to translate abstract business requirements into rigorous mathematical models determines the success of large-scale digital transformation initiatives. You are not just a modeler; you are a consultant who must balance technical excellence with the practical constraints of enterprise-grade software delivery.

The Cognizant interview process

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

Recruiter Screen

Whoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.

What to demonstrate

Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed

How to prepare

Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands

Technical Rounds

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows

Behavioral Fit

Behavioural answers from data candidates get audited in a way that answers from other roles do not. When you say a model lifted retention, the next question is the denominator, the window, and how you knew the lift was not seasonal. So attach the measurement to each claim while you tell it: what the metric was before, over what period, and against what comparison. Numbers with no baseline read as rounded-up memory, and one unsupported figure tends to make the rest of the story sound rehearsed.

What to demonstrate

Whether each impact number arrives with a baseline, a window and a comparison, or as a bare percentage
Whether you can name the method that attributed the effect to your work (an experiment, a staged rollout, a seasonal control) or concede the link was correlational
Whether the magnitudes stay internally consistent when the interviewer multiplies them against the scale you described earlier

How to prepare

For each story, write the impact line as metric, value before, value after, window, and how attribution was established. Any line missing two of those five is a follow-up you will answer badly.
Re-derive one headline number from the source table rather than the deck that reported it. Resume numbers drift upward across retellings.
Decide in advance which figures you cannot share, and prepare the ratio or relative change you can give instead, so a confidentiality limit does not read as evasion.

Where candidates lose points

Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel

The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.

Counting on an identity key that changes underneath the metric

visitor_id is per browser and per device, and it resets on cookie clearance, private browsing and platform privacy changes, so the distinct-visitor count drifts upward for reasons unrelated to reach. Any rate with visitors in the denominator therefore decays over time even when behaviour is constant, and any rate with visitors in the numerator inflates. The stitching at signup makes it worse in both directions: a user who signed up on mobile and returns on desktop is two visitors and one user, while a shared device is one visitor and several users. Decide which key each metric is counted on, write it into the definition, and when comparing a period before and after a platform privacy change, expect a level shift in every visitor-keyed metric and do not attribute it to the product.

Ignoring interference between units in a marketplace experiment

Ask whether one unit's treatment can change another unit's outcome through shared inventory, a matching pool, a social graph or a common budget. Where it can, randomise at a level that contains the spillover, such as region or time slice, and say explicitly what that costs you in statistical power.

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

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

Questions & practice

Describe the process of feature selection and how you evaluate its impact on model performance.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you stay updated with the latest trends in AI and machine learning?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Explain the difference between bagging and boosting algorithms.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Cluster bootstrap for a per-session rate randomised on users

Hard · cluster bootstrap · randomisation unit · variance

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (35 min)

per_user = df.groupby(['variant','user_id'])['converted'].agg(['sum','size']); split into two arrays per arm.
point = (t_sum.sum() / t_n.sum()) - (c_sum.sum() / c_n.sum()).
For b in range(B): idx = rng.integers(0, len(t_sum), len(t_sum)); ratio_t = t_sum[idx].sum() / t_n[idx].sum(); same for control; store the difference. Vectorise by drawing a (B, n) index matrix if memory allows.
ci = np.percentile(diffs, [2.5, 97.5]); naive_se = sqrt(p_t*(1-p_t)/n_sessions_t + p_c*(1-p_c)/n_sessions_c); naive_ci = point +/- 1.96*naive_se.
width_ratio = (ci[1]-ci[0]) / (naive_ci[1]-naive_ci[0]).

Expected result: A point estimate identical to the full-data ratio difference, a percentile interval containing that point estimate, and a width ratio greater than 1 whose value approximates sqrt(1 + (m-1)*rho) for the data's mean cluster size m and intraclass correlation rho. A ratio of approximately 1.0 means sessions were resampled instead of users.

Verify it yourself

Construct data where every user has exactly one session: the cluster and naive intervals then agree to within Monte Carlo error, since m = 1 makes the design effect 1.
Construct data where converted is constant within each user: rho is 1, and the width ratio should approach sqrt(m).
The bootstrap distribution's mean sits close to the point estimate; a large offset means the resampled arms have drifted in size.
Doubling B narrows the Monte Carlo noise in the percentile endpoints without shifting the interval's centre.

Follow-up

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

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?

Paying accounts with no active seat in 28 days

Medium · anti-join · null-semantics · retention-risk

dim_account holds account_id, account_type, lifecycle_status, seats_licensed. fct_event holds account_id, user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, and its account_id is NULL for every signed-out and pre-signup event. Find accounts with lifecycle_status = 'active' and account_type <> 'internal' that had no distinct user complete a core action in the trailing 28 days. Return account_id, seats_licensed and days since that account's most recent core action, with NULL where the account has never emitted one. Order by seats_licensed descending.

Approach

Build the recent-activity set first: fct_event rows with is_core_action = TRUE, occurred_at_utc >= now() - interval '28 days', and an explicit account_id IS NOT NULL. Making the NULL exclusion explicit in the CTE is what lets you reason about the anti-join afterwards.
Express the exclusion with NOT EXISTS (correlated on account_id) or a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL guard. Do not use NOT IN against this column: it is nullable, and SQL's three-valued logic turns the whole predicate UNKNOWN, returning zero rows.
Compute last-seen separately as MAX(occurred_at_utc) per account over all history, LEFT JOINed on, so an account that has never emitted a core action (NULL) is distinguishable from one that went quiet six weeks ago. Those two cases have different causes and different owners.
Rank by seats_licensed, or better by the account's current mrr_cents_constant_fx if you are allowed the subscription table, because a silent fifty-seat account is a renewal conversation and a silent one-seat account is noise.
Before shipping, check whether the never-seen group is a cluster by signup date or surface. A block of accounts with no events at all is usually an instrumentation gap, not a set of customers who stopped using the product.

Follow-up

How would you distinguish a genuinely idle account from one whose events lost their account_id after an instrumentation change?
Would you count on fct_event.account_id or resolve user_id through dim_user instead, and what does each choice miss?
Licensed-seat utilisation is the continuous version of this. How would you turn this boolean into that ratio?

Describe a project where you had to choose between two different modeling approaches. How did you decide?

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.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

Follow-up

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

How do you determine the success metrics for a project before you begin data collection?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
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 a recommendation system for a retail client?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

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

Define success for a rebuilt first-run onboarding checklist

Easy · activation · metric tree · cohorts

A rebuilt first-run checklist ships to all new signups next month. You have dim_user (user_id, account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal) and fct_event (user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, event_name, surface). Propose a primary metric with an explicit numerator, denominator, window and publication lag, plus two guardrails and one diagnostic you would refuse to treat as success. The team wants a number it can read weekly, and the constraint is that everything must be computable from those two tables alone. Deliver the metric tree from the north star down to the metric you chose.

Approach

Fix the grain and the cohort key first: the checklist is seen by users, so count on user_id with account_created_at_utc as the cohort key, and say out loud that the north star is account-grained so the tree crosses grains here deliberately rather than by accident.
Take seven-day activation as the primary — core action on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, +7 days) — because the two-distinct-days predicate cannot be satisfied by the single checklist-completion click the feature itself produces.
Demote checklist completion rate to a diagnostic and give the reason: it is an output of the feature, so it is near-perfectly correlated with having shipped the feature and cannot fall when the feature is bad.
Pick guardrails by the failure each one catches, not by what is easy to query: week-4 signup-cohort retention catches an activation gain that does not persist, and p50 minutes to first core action catches a checklist that adds steps to a path users already completed.
State the operational rules explicitly: is_internal = FALSE, an 8-day publication lag, and signup_surface values 'invite' and 'sso_provisioned' split out because those users arrive through an administrator rather than a self-serve signup and may not be shown the checklist at all.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the primary in full: numerator = cohort users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least 2 distinct UTC dates in [account_created_at_utc, +7 days); denominator = all dim_user rows in the cohort week with is_internal = FALSE.
Draw the tree downward: weekly active accounts completing a core action, then seven-day activation rate multiplied by weekly signups, then checklist step completion and time-to-first-core-action labelled as diagnostics.
Attach the timing rules: 8-day lag, and a cohort with fewer than seven full elapsed days published blank rather than partial.
Attach each guardrail to its named failure mode in one line each, so the guardrail list reads as a list of specific risks rather than a list of metrics.
Write the exclusion rule and the surface split, and state what you would do if 'invite' users turn out to be a third of the cohort.

Expected result: A primary metric stated as numerator, denominator, window, lag and exclusions; two guardrails each tied to a named failure mode; and checklist completion explicitly demoted to a diagnostic with the reason given.

Verify it yourself

The denominator includes cohort users who never returned. If it is built from users with any event, the metric is conditioned on survival and will read several points too high.
Recomputing a cohort's activation rate three days after first publication must return the same number. If it moves, the right-hand window bound or the late-arrival rule is missing.
The per-surface cohort counts must sum to the unsplit cohort count, so confirm signup_surface IN ('invite','sso_provisioned') is broken out rather than dropped. Note the limit while you are there: neither dim_user nor fct_event carries a pre-signup identifier, so whether those users were ever shown the checklist is not answerable from these two tables — the surface split is the only handling available, and the metric definition has to say that rather than imply exposure was verified.

Follow-up

Activation rises three points but week-4 retention is flat. What do you tell the team, and what would you need to distinguish a real gain from pulled-forward activity?
The checklist ships on web only. What changes in the denominator, and what breaks if you leave every surface in?
Signup mix shifted toward 'invite' the same week. How would you show whether the activation move was mix or behaviour?

Separate a definition edit from a behaviour change

Easy · definition-change · metric-versioning · cohorts

Seven-day activation rate is documented as core actions on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside the first seven days after account_created_at_utc, and every cohort published through last week was computed on that definition. The dashboard now reads 38% for the signup cohort that started Monday, against 31% for the cohort before it. Two things landed in that week: an onboarding change, and a commit to the metric's SQL that you have not read yet and that came with no documentation update. You have dim_user, fct_event and the metric's version history. Deliver two numbers: how many of the 7 points are behaviour and how many are the definition. Then say which published cohorts are no longer comparable.

Approach

Diff the metric SQL across the commit boundary and enumerate every changed predicate individually: the distinct-day threshold, the is_internal exclusion, the is_core_action source, the window bounds, and the identity key. A single commit routinely changes more than one, and each has its own sign.
Dual-run both definitions over the same 26 cohort weeks. The definition effect is the level shift between the two series computed on identical data, which isolates it from anything that happened in the world.
Read the behaviour effect only from the old-definition series, comparing the new cohort to its own trailing cohorts. The new-definition series cannot answer the behaviour question because it has no pre-period.
Explain the mechanism of the changed predicate rather than only its size. Lowering a distinct-day threshold from 2 to 1 admits every user who acted once in a single session, which is a large and low-intent population, so a several-point jump is the expected magnitude and not a surprise.
State the restatement plan: pick one definition, backfill the full history on it, and annotate the break date. A series carrying two definitions is not a time series.

Follow-up

The onboarding team wants the 1-day threshold kept because it is easier to move. What is your argument, and what would change your mind?
How would you make a definition change visible to every consumer of this metric without relying on people reading a changelog?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.

Day 1 — Design one test end to end on paper

Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.

Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.

Day 2 — Power arithmetic until it is automatic

Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.

Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.

Day 3 — Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem

Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.

Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.

Day 4 — Validity threats you can actually test for

Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.

Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.

Day 5 — When randomization is not available

Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.

Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.

Day 6 — The readout query

Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.

Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.

Day 7 — Present it to someone who will not read the appendix

Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.

Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.

Stories where someone disagreed with you

Have two ready. In one, the data was on your side and you had to move someone who outranked you. In the other, the pushback was correct and you changed position. The second is the harder story and it lands better, because it shows you separate being right from being attached to an answer. Name the person's actual objection.

Tell me about a time you had a disagreement with a team member regarding a technical approach.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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

Describe a situation where you had to simplify complex technical results for a client.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.

Follow-up

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

Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched

Hard · self-assessment · attribution · communication

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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