Interview guides · Cohere Health

Cohere Health Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Take-home style practice for data scientist candidates: a messy dataset, a fixed time budget, and an analysis you write up and defend.

The 60-second brief

The role of a Data Scientist at Cohere Health is pivotal in leveraging data to enhance healthcare delivery and outcomes. As a Data Scientist, you will engage with intricate datasets to derive insights that inform critical business decisions and improve patient care processes. Your work will directly impact the development of intelligent solutions that streamline operations, optimize resource allocation, and ultimately lead to better health outcomes for users.

How much statistics you need depends on the flavour of the seat. Experiment-facing work wants you deep enough to notice that repeated looks at accumulating data inflate the false positive rate of a fixed-sample test; modelling-facing work wants estimation and honest uncertainty intervals.

Focus areas

Build member-month denominators from overlapping coverage spans
Minimise protected health information in every extract
Reconstruct drug exposure intervals from dispensing records

Overview

You will be part of a dynamic team that collaborates closely with product managers, engineers, and healthcare professionals. The complexity and scale of data involved in healthcare present both challenges and opportunities, making this role not only crucial but also intellectually stimulating. You will navigate through diverse projects, from predictive modeling to statistical analysis, contributing to products that empower healthcare providers and patients alike.

The Cohere Health interview process

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

Initial Screening Call

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 Evaluations

Much of what gets scored here happens out loud while you type. Nobody can see your reasoning inside a half-written query, so five silent minutes read as being stuck even when they are not. State the plan in plain language first: which tables, what grain you are aggregating to, and the one filter that defines the population. Then write it. The narration doubles as insurance, because a wrong plan gets caught early and cheaply while a wrong query gets caught at the end with no time left to redo it. A timed statistics section, where one exists, is a separate test with its own clock.

What to demonstrate

Whether the query you write matches the plan you just described
What you do with a hint, meaning whether the correction gets absorbed or the first approach gets defended
Whether you can debug your own wrong output by reading the result set and naming which part of the query produced the anomaly

How to prepare

Solve three problems while screen-sharing into a recording, then watch it back and mark every stretch longer than thirty seconds where you said nothing
Practise compressing the plan into one sentence before typing, then check afterwards whether the finished query actually matched it
Time yourself on statistics questions that carry a business reading, such as what a confidence interval does and does not claim, rather than re-reading notes without a clock

Interviews with Stakeholders

An added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact

How to prepare

Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.

Where candidates lose points

Treating clinical measurements as missing at random

A lab result, a vital sign, or a screening exists because someone ordered it, and ordering tracks suspicion of disease, visit frequency, and site workflow. Imputing the mean or dropping incomplete rows biases the population estimate and can flip the sign of an association, because the untested are systematically healthier or systematically disengaged. The presence indicator is often more predictive than the value, which is a warning sign rather than a feature win: a model that learns test ordering will not transfer to a site with different protocols.

Rates built on member counts rather than exposure

Members join and leave mid-period, so dividing events by distinct members mixes a person covered for 30 days with one covered for 365. New joiners also have artificially low observed utilisation because their claims have not arrived yet and because care takes time to initiate. Denominators must be member-months or member-years, and comparative quality measures usually need a continuous-enrolment requirement with an explicit allowable gap, stated in days.

Sizing estimates built on unnamed, unrevisable assumptions

Write each assumption as a named number you can change, then show the arithmetic so the interviewer can challenge one input instead of the whole answer. Finish by saying which assumption the result is most sensitive to, which matters more than the point estimate.

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.

Questions & practice

Explain the bias-variance tradeoff.

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?

Describe a project where you used machine learning. What was your approach?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?

Bootstrap a confidence interval for a ratio-of-sums PMPM

Medium · bootstrap · ratio estimator · resampling unit

You have one row per member for a fully run-out incurred year: member_id, member_months, allowed_amount. Report allowed PMPM, defined as sum(allowed_amount) divided by sum(member_months), with a 95 percent confidence interval from a bootstrap you write yourself. No library resampler. Resample members with replacement, recompute the ratio on each of 2,000 replicates, take a percentile interval, and seed the generator so the result reproduces. In two sentences, state why resampling claim lines instead of members would be wrong.

Approach

Name the estimator precisely: PMPM is a ratio of sums, not the mean of per-member ratios. The two differ whenever exposure correlates with spend, and it does, because members who churn out mid-year are systematically different from members covered all twelve months.
Resample the unit of independence, which is the member, and recompute numerator and denominator together on the same draw. Recomputing only the numerator against a fixed denominator understates variance and is a common slip.
Pull member_months and allowed_amount into numpy arrays once, then draw indices with rng.integers(0, n, size=n) per replicate. Index draws over arrays run one to two orders of magnitude faster than DataFrame.sample, which is the difference between 2,000 replicates and 200.
Take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the replicate ratios. Expect an interval that is asymmetric around the point estimate, because healthcare spend is right skewed. That asymmetry is the method working, not a bug to centre away.
Answer the line-resampling question concretely: the many lines of one high-cost member are not independent draws, so line resampling shrinks the interval toward zero width, and member_months has no line-level analogue, so the denominator becomes undefined.

Worked solution (25 min)

Compute the point estimate as allowed.sum() / months.sum() on the full sample.
Extract both columns to float numpy arrays and create rng = np.random.default_rng(seed).
Loop 2,000 times: idx = rng.integers(0, n, n); ratio = allowed[idx].sum() / months[idx].sum(); store it.
Take np.percentile(replicates, [2.5, 97.5]) and report the point estimate with that interval and the seed.

Expected result: A point estimate plus a 95 percent percentile interval that is wider on the upper side than the lower. With tens of thousands of members and a typical commercial cost distribution the relative half-width lands on the order of a few percent; an interval a small fraction of a percent wide is the signature of having resampled rows rather than members.

Verify it yourself

Re-running with the same seed reproduces both bounds exactly.
Raising replicates from 2,000 to 8,000 moves each bound by less than its third significant figure.
The mean of the replicate ratios sits close to the point estimate; a large gap indicates a bug in the resampler rather than skew.
Replicate denominators cluster tightly around the observed total member-months, which confirms the draw size is n rather than a fixed constant.

Follow-up

Half a percent of members have a transplant or a long NICU stay. Does a percentile interval still have nominal coverage, and what would you do about the tail?
The question changes to comparing PMPM across provider panels. What becomes the resampling unit and why?
How would you use the same replicates to test whether this year's PMPM differs from last year's, given the same members appear in both?

Describe how you would optimize a slow-running SQL query.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
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?
How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

Write a function to calculate the Fibonacci sequence.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Report site activation to first randomization without hiding non-enrollers

Medium · grain collapse · left join · censoring

study_site holds one row per (study_id, site_id): site_activation_date, which is NULL for a site selected but never activated, and site_status. study_subject_visit holds subject_visit_id, study_id, site_id, subject_id, randomization_ts (NULL for screen failures), visit_name, visit_number, actual_visit_date and visit_status, with one row per subject per protocol visit, so randomization_ts repeats across every visit of a randomized subject and a site that has screened nobody has no rows there at all. For one study_id and a stated data cut date, return per activated site the activation date, the first randomization_ts and the days between them, with activated sites that have randomized nobody still present. Add a study-level summary giving median days to first randomization and the share of activated sites with no randomization by day 90.

Approach

Take the site universe from study_site, never from study_subject_visit. The visit table can only contain sites that have screened at least one subject, so a universe built from DISTINCT site_id there omits exactly the sites this metric exists to expose. Filter study_site to the study and to site_activation_date IS NOT NULL, then LEFT JOIN the per-site first randomization.
Collapse the grain before aggregating anything on the visit side. The table repeats randomization_ts across every visit of a randomized subject, so any count taken at row grain is inflated by visits per subject. MIN(randomization_ts) per site is safe, COUNT is not.
State the date boundary rule. randomization_ts is a timestamp and site_activation_date is a date, so a randomization at 23:40 local time can land on either side of a day boundary depending on the zone the timestamp is stored in. Cast once, deliberately, and say which zone.
Use PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY days) for the median and be explicit that it ignores NULLs, so it is a median over enrolling sites only. That is exactly why the non-enroller share is reported beside it rather than instead of it.
Censor the day-90 denominator against the data cut. A site activated 40 days before the cut has not had 90 days to randomize, so it cannot be scored on that bar and belongs outside that denominator.

Worked solution (25 min)

CTE sites: site_id and site_activation_date from study_site for the study where site_activation_date IS NOT NULL. The (study_id, site_id) key already gives one activation date per site, so assert that key rather than de-duplicating defensively.
CTE first_rand: site_id and MIN(randomization_ts) over study_subject_visit rows for the study where randomization_ts IS NOT NULL, grouped by site_id.
LEFT JOIN sites to first_rand and compute days_to_first_randomization with an explicit cast of the timestamp to a date.
Summary: PERCENTILE_CONT(0.5) over non-null days, plus the count and share of sites with no randomization by day 90, restricted to sites activated at least 90 days before the data cut.
Compare the site-level row count with COUNT(DISTINCT site_id) in study_subject_visit for the study; the difference is the activated sites that have screened nobody, which is the population the metric is for.

Expected result: One row per activated site with site_id, site_activation_date, first_randomization_ts and days_to_first_randomization, NULL in both randomization columns for sites that have randomized nobody, including sites with no study_subject_visit rows at all; plus one summary row with median_days_over_enrolling_sites, sites_activated_90d_or_more and share_with_no_randomization_by_day_90.

Verify it yourself

Site-level row count equals the number of study_site rows for the study with a non-null site_activation_date, and is greater than or equal to COUNT(DISTINCT site_id) in study_subject_visit for that study. Below it means either an activated site is missing from study_site or a visit row carries a site_id whose activation date is NULL, both data-quality findings.
No days_to_first_randomization is negative. A negative value is a data-quality finding to raise, not a number to clamp at zero.
The day-90 denominator excludes sites activated within 90 days of the data cut. Including them can only add sites that have not had a full 90 days, and any of those without a randomization would be miscounted as a failure.

Follow-up

The same site_id appears under two studies. What breaks, and what is the correct grain for this metric?
Would you present this as a median, as a Kaplan-Meier curve of time to first randomization, or both, and what does the curve show that the median cannot?
A site randomized one subject who withdrew at visit 2. Does that site count as enrolling here, and how does that differ from a randomized-and-retained measure?

If tasked with improving a healthcare process using data, what steps would you take?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

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 tasks when working on multiple projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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?

How would you approach predicting patient outcomes using historical data?

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.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

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?

How would you validate the effectiveness of a new data-driven initiative?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

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

What is the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

Size a clinic-randomised trial when the intracluster correlation binds

Medium · cluster randomisation · design effect · stepped wedge

A care-coordination change is delivered at the clinic level and cannot be withheld from some members of a participating clinic. Forty-eight clinics are available for 1:1 randomisation. The primary outcome is the 90-day primary care contact rate among newly enrolled members, baseline 0.62, with a target of plus 5 percentage points. Each clinic contributes about 60 eligible members a year, and the intracluster correlation on this outcome is 0.02. Two-sided alpha 0.05, 80 percent power. Give clinics required per arm, say whether 48 suffices, and what you would do.

Approach

Compute the individually randomised sample size first, then inflate it by the design effect 1 + (m - 1) x ICC, where m is the average cluster size. The design effect is the price of correlation within clinics and is the single largest term in this calculation.
Convert the inflated individual N into clusters by dividing by m, and compare with the 24 clinics available per arm.
Check the ceiling before proposing a longer accrual window. As m grows, effective members per cluster approaches 1 / ICC, here 50, so 24 clinics can never contribute more than 1,200 effective members per arm no matter how many members each one enrols. If the required effective N exceeds that, no amount of accrual rescues the parallel design.
Propose the designs that actually change the arithmetic: a stepped wedge in which every clinic crosses over so each contributes a within-cluster comparison, or a smaller randomisation unit (provider pod) if the intervention can be delivered at that level without contamination.
Add the two refinements a reviewer will ask for: use a t-distribution with roughly 2k - 2 degrees of freedom rather than z when k is small (here about 46 df, which raises N by about 4 percent), and use covariate-constrained randomisation on baseline contact rate so 48 clinics do not land badly imbalanced by chance.

Worked solution (30 min)

Individual n per arm = 7.849 x (0.62 x 0.38 + 0.67 x 0.33) / 0.05^2 = 7.849 x 0.4567 / 0.0025 = 1,434.
Design effect = 1 + (60 - 1) x 0.02 = 2.18.
Inflated n per arm = 1,434 x 2.18 = 3,126 members, so clusters per arm = 3,126 / 60 = 52.1, round up to 53.
Compare with 24 clinics available per arm: the study is short by more than a factor of two.
Compute the ceiling: 1 / 0.02 = 50 effective members per clinic, so 24 clinics give at most 1,200 effective members per arm against the 1,434 required.

Expected result: 53 clinics per arm (106 total) against 48 available. The effective-sample ceiling of 1,200 per arm is below the 1,434 needed, so the parallel cluster design is infeasible at any panel size; the answer is a stepped wedge, a smaller randomisation unit, or a pre-registered larger MDE.

Verify it yourself

Verify the design effect directly: 1 + 59 x 0.02 = 2.18.
Verify the diminishing return: doubling m from 60 to 120 raises effective members per cluster only from 27.5 to 35.5, not from 60 to 120.
Recompute with t-based quantiles at 46 df and confirm the requirement moves by a few percent, not by a factor.

Follow-up

Sketch the stepped-wedge analysis model. What does a secular trend do to the estimate if you leave period effects out?
The ICC was estimated from a prior year at 0.02 with a wide interval. How do you size under ICC uncertainty?
Six clinics withdraw after randomisation. What does that do to power compared with losing the same number of members?

First-pass denial rate doubled in one received week

Medium · pipeline failure · segment cuts · denominator definition

First-pass denial rate jumped from 6.1 to 11.8 percent in a single received_date week and stayed at the new level. Nothing in the adjudication rules changed that week. You have medical_claim_line: claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code, claim_status, denial_reason_code, member_id, received_date, adjudicated_at, billing_provider_npi. The metric counts lines whose first adjudication returns 'denied', over lines received in the window at claim_version = 1. Find the cause, say whether denial behaviour actually changed, and deliver the corrected series plus the query change that fixes it.

Approach

Cut the excess by denial_reason_code before anything else. A behaviour change spreads across codes; an upstream failure concentrates in one. If a single eligibility-related code carries nearly all of the 5.7 point excess, the claims are fine and the eligibility data was not.
Join the denied lines to member_enrollment and compare the span's created_at to the claim's received_date. Lines denied for members whose coverage span loaded after the claim arrived are a load-ordering failure, not a coding failure.
Check resolution downstream: take those claim_ids and look for a later version with frequency_code 7 that adjudicates to 'paid'. A high resubmit-and-pay share confirms the denial was transient and recoverable.
Verify the denominator is not the mover. Count lines at claim_version = 1 by received_date and check the weekday mix, because submission batching makes received_date strongly day-of-week patterned and a short or holiday week shifts the denominator without changing behaviour.
Confirm runout: the metric should be held until 60 days of adjudication have passed, so check that the comparison weeks are equally mature rather than comparing a settled week to a fresh one.
Restate the series with the affected reason code broken out as its own line, and change the query to carry denial_reason_code into the reported breakdown rather than only the headline rate.

Follow-up

The affected lines all get paid on resubmission. Is the first-pass denial rate then wrong, or right and uninteresting?
How would you monitor for this class of failure without waiting for someone to notice a chart?
What changes if the excess is spread evenly across denial_reason_code instead of concentrated?

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.

Ownership when the result is inconvenient

Sometimes the honest read is that the initiative did not work, and the person who commissioned the analysis was hoping otherwise. Interviewers want to know whether you softened it. Prepare the case where you delivered an unwelcome result, how you presented the uncertainty without hiding behind it, and what the team did next.

Discuss a time when you had to make a decision with incomplete data.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
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 would you do differently if you ran that project again?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Make an honest case for your own analytical impact

Hard · impact attribution · counterfactual · self-assessment

You are asked to account for a year of your work. Constraint: you may only use measures that existed before you knew the outcome, and you must include one project that moved nothing. The portfolio contains a measure specification that changed how a contract settles, a predictive model that shipped, a self-serve dashboard, and an evaluation that killed a proposed programme. Deliverable: how you attribute value to each, which of them you claim credit for and which you do not, and the one number you would accept being judged on next year.

Approach

The probe is whether you can reason counterfactually about your own work, which is the same discipline this domain demands of you for programmes, applied where it is uncomfortable.
State the counterfactual for each item: what would have happened without you. A measure specification that changed how a contract settles has a dollar counterfactual you can compute. A dashboard's counterfactual is analyst hours, which is real and small, and attaching a revenue number to it is where these accounts usually turn into fiction.
Treat the killed programme as your strongest item and say why. Avoided spend is real value, it is attributable because the decision turned on your evaluation, and it is the one item nobody else will count on your behalf.
Report the shipped model the way you would report anyone's model: calibration in the subgroups that matter, adoption by the people it was built for, and whether any decision changed. A model that is live but ignored has zero impact, and saying so is the credibility test in this answer.
Name the failed project with its mechanism and its cost, then say what earlier signal you would watch to kill it sooner. Time to kill is a legitimate impact measure.
Choose next year's number so that it can go down. A metric that only ratchets upward is not a commitment.

Follow-up

Two other people also claim the contract measure. How do you split it?
Your model is live and used, but the decisions it informs would have been the same without it. Is that impact?
What is the strongest argument that your year had less impact than you just described?

Sequence three urgent requests with one analyst-week available

Medium · prioritisation · tradeoffs · stakeholder communication

Three requests land on Monday and you have one week. An actuarial team needs incurred-claims completion factors restated before a filing deadline on Thursday. A clinical programme owner wants a deterioration model refreshed because its calibration has drifted in one region. A trial operations team wants site enrolment forecasts for a portfolio review in two weeks. Each requester believes theirs is blocking. Deliverable: your sequence with the reasoning, the message you send to whoever is deprioritised, and the smaller artefact you hand each of the two you cannot fully serve.

Approach

The probe is whether you prioritise on consequence and reversibility rather than on who asked loudest or most recently.
Classify each request by what happens if it slips. A regulatory or contractual deadline is irreversible on its date, a drifting model is causing harm every day it keeps running, and a portfolio review can absorb a provisional number. That ordering is defensible to all three requesters because it does not depend on your preferences.
Take the deadline-bound work first, but scope it to the minimum defensible output, because completion factors feeding a filing carry a different error tolerance than a slide.
Do not let the drifting model simply wait. Quantify the harm cheaply by comparing calibration in the affected region against the rest, and if it is materially miscalibrated propose flagging or suppressing its output for that region within the hour rather than at the end of a refresh.
Give each deprioritised requester something real: a provisional forecast with its uncertainty and a refresh date, or a diagnostic that tells them whether their problem is urgent. Say no explicitly with a date rather than going quiet, because silence is what produces escalation.

Follow-up

The programme owner escalates to your manager. What do you want your manager to be able to say?
Midweek the actuarial work needs two more full days than you estimated. What gives?
How does your answer change if the drifting model drives a clinical outreach list rather than a report?