Commonwealth Bank of Australia Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia, you play a vital role in shaping the financial well-being of millions of customers through data-driven innovation. You sit at the intersection of complex financial data, advanced machine learning, and core banking products, helping to drive decisions across retail banking, risk management, fraud analytics, and customer experience. Your daily work directly influences how the bank manages credit risk, prevents financial crime, and personalizes digital banking services at scale.

SQL is seldom the hardest round and is often the one that eliminates people. The working bar is usually window functions, correct deduplication, and joins that do not silently fan out rows, rather than obscure syntax.

Focus areas

• Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
• Read vintage curves, not blended portfolio averages
• Reconcile amounts in minor units and currency

Overview

The scope of this role spans end-to-end analytical and modeling lifecycles. You will conceptualize predictive models, design robust A/B testing frameworks, and partner closely with engineering and product teams to deploy machine learning solutions into production. Whether you are optimizing fraud detection systems, evaluating credit risk models, or designing core product metrics, your insights will provide the strategic foresight required by senior leadership.

Expect a fast-paced and intellectually rigorous environment where scale and data complexity are high. handles enormous volumes of transactional and behavioral data, meaning your models must be both statistically sound and operationally resilient. Success in this position requires a balance of sharp technical execution, commercial acumen, and the communication skills necessary to translate complex models into actionable business strategies.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia interview process

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

Digital Interview

Because the format is not fixed, prepare the reasoning rather than the ritual. Nearly every version of this round draws on the same underlying material: a design you can defend, a metric you can define exactly, an analysis whose assumptions you can state out loud. Only the wrapper changes, whether that is a take-home, a live case, a deep dive on past work, or a rough estimate on a whiteboard. Answers rehearsed to fit one shape stall the moment the shape differs. Practise naming the assumption behind a number, then saying how much the conclusion moves if that assumption is wrong.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your justification for a method survives the question 'why not the simpler thing', including when the simpler thing would have worked
• Precision under pressure: what exactly counts as an active user, a conversion or a success, over what window, with what exclusions
• Whether you carry an argument through to a recommendation instead of stopping at a list of tradeoffs

How to prepare

• For each project you plan to mention, write the metric definition in one sentence: numerator, denominator, time window, exclusions. Say it out loud once, because vagueness shows up in speech before it shows up on paper.
• Rehearse the same project at three lengths: two minutes, ten minutes, and a deep dive on one technical decision. Cutting live is harder than it sounds.
• For your headline result, write down what would have had to be true for it to be wrong, and how you ruled that out.

Technical Assessments

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

Multiple Interviews

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.

Group Discussions

Rounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.

What to demonstrate

• Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
• The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
• Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options

How to prepare

• Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
• Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
• Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.

Where candidates lose points

Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs

Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.

Using written premium as the denominator of a loss ratio

Premium is written at inception and earned pro rata across the exposure period, so in a growing book written premium runs ahead of earned premium and the loss ratio comes out too low, with the error reversing when the book shrinks. The numerator has the mirror-image problem if it omits incurred-but-not-reported reserves, since recent accident periods then look profitable twice over. Both sides must refer to the same exposure period, which is what an accident-period view at a fixed development age enforces.

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.

Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised

Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.

Questions & practice

Describe a situation where parametric testing failed and you had to rely on non-parametric statistical methods.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

1. Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
2. Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
3. Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.

Follow-up

• How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
• What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?

Estimate a delinquency roll-rate matrix and project twelve months

Hard · roll rates · markov chain · survivorship

fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, as_of_month_end, months_on_book, delinquency_bucket, charge_off_flag, prepaid_in_full_flag and restructured_flag. Build a month-to-month transition matrix over the five delinquency buckets plus absorbing charged_off and prepaid states. Loans that stop appearing must be routed to an absorbing state rather than dropped. Project the current book forward 12 months by repeated matrix multiplication and report the projected share reaching charge-off. Handle restructured_flag explicitly, and name one place the Markov assumption fails on this data.

Approach

1. Build consecutive month pairs per loan by shifting as_of_month_end within loan_id, then verify the shifted value is exactly one month later. A gap is not a transition, it is an exit you have not resolved yet.
2. Resolve exits before counting anything. A loan whose last row carries charge_off_flag moves to charged_off, one carrying prepaid_in_full_flag moves to prepaid, and one that disappears with neither is a data question to raise rather than silently discard, because discarding it is survivorship that inflates every cure rate.
3. Count pairs into a 7 by 7 matrix and row-normalise. Assert every row sums to one and the two absorbing rows are the identity; a row that does not sum to one means exits were dropped.
4. Decide and state the restructure rule. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a dpd_60_89 to current move on a restructured loan is not a cure. Either give restructured loans their own state or carry the pre-restructure bucket, but do not let that move land in the cure cell.
5. Project by taking the current bucket distribution as a row vector and multiplying by the matrix twelve times. Report the charged_off entry, and report it again from an all-current starting vector so the reader can see how much of the projection comes from loans that are already delinquent today.
6. State the homogeneity failure plainly: transition rates depend strongly on months_on_book, so one pooled matrix applied to a book with a young mix understates early-life delinquency. If the mix is moving, estimate separate matrices by seasoning band.

Worked solution (45 min)

1. Sort by loan_id and as_of_month_end, shift to form (from_state, to_state) pairs, and flag pairs whose month gap is not exactly one.
2. For each loan's final row, assign the absorbing destination from charge_off_flag or prepaid_in_full_flag, and list loans that vanish with neither as an exception count to report.
3. Apply the restructure rule, then build the 7 by 7 count matrix with a cross-tabulation over ordered state categories and row-normalise it.
4. Assert row sums equal one and absorbing rows are the identity, then take the current month's bucket distribution as a row vector.
5. Multiply twelve times, report the charged_off component, and repeat from an all-current vector for comparison.

Expected result: A 7 by 7 row-stochastic matrix with identity rows for charged_off and prepaid, a current-to-current diagonal typically above 0.95, roll rates rising with bucket depth, and a 12-month projected charge-off share of a few percentage points from an all-current start and materially higher from the actual book.

Verify it yourself

• Every row sums to one within floating-point tolerance, and both absorbing rows are exactly the identity.
• No mass sits in cells that skip a bucket upward, such as dpd_1_29 to dpd_60_89 in one month; if there is, the pairs are not actually consecutive months.
• The projection from an all-current start is strictly below the projection from the real book distribution.
• Backtest by estimating on months up to t minus 12 and comparing the projected distribution with the realised one at t; a systematic optimistic gap points at dropped exits or at seasoning, not at noise.

Follow-up

• How would you validate the projection against what actually happened, and over what window?
• The cure rate out of dpd_30_59 rose five points last quarter. What are the candidate explanations and how would you separate them?
• When would you prefer a vintage curve to a roll-rate projection, and why?

Simulate false alarms in a merchant chargeback monitoring rule

Medium · simulation · rare events · monitoring thresholds

Baseline matured first-chargeback rate is 12 per 10,000 settled transactions. A monitoring rule alerts when a merchant's observed monthly rate exceeds twice baseline. For monthly settled transaction counts of 500, 2,000, 10,000 and 50,000, simulate the false-alarm probability per merchant-month under the baseline, and the power to detect a merchant whose true rate is 30 per 10,000. Then, for a portfolio of 4,000 merchants split 60, 25, 10 and 5 percent across those four counts, give the expected number of false alarms per month.

Approach

1. Recognise the rule is a threshold on an integer count, not on a continuous rate. At n = 500, twice baseline is 24 per 10,000, so the first observable value above it is 2 chargebacks, or 40 per 10,000. Derive the trigger count for every n before simulating anything.
2. Draw binomial counts with numpy at p = 0.0012 and take the share at or above the trigger for the false-alarm rate, then repeat at p = 0.0030 for power. Use at least 200,000 draws per cell so a probability near 0.001 has a usable standard error.
3. Cross-check every simulated cell against the Poisson approximation with lambda = n*p, which is tight here because p is tiny. A mismatch almost always means the trigger count is off by one.
4. Weight the per-merchant false-alarm probabilities by the portfolio mix, and report the share of expected alerts contributed by each size band rather than only the total.
5. Close on the operating consequence: a fixed multiplicative threshold is not a constant false-alarm rate across merchant sizes, so either the threshold scales with n or small merchants need a minimum volume before the rule applies.

Follow-up

• How would you set a threshold that holds the false-alarm rate roughly constant across merchant size?
• The rule reads the transaction month, but disputes arrive for up to 120 days afterwards. What does that do to the alert and how would you fix it?
• What does a month of these false alarms cost, and how would you decide whether it is worth paying?

Write a query using SQL window functions to calculate rolling 30-day active customer metrics from a transactional ledger.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
2. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
3. State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.

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?

How would you identify duplicate customer accounts in a massive relational database using efficient SQL joins and aggregations?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
2. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
3. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.

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?

Extract the top three highest-value transactions per customer category using rank and partition functions.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
2. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
3. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.

Follow-up

• How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
• How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Accident-quarter loss ratio on earned rather than written premium

Hard · loss ratio · earned vs written · development age

From fct_policy_period_monthly, compute the accident-quarter loss ratio by product_line: incurred losses, being paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor, over earned_premium_minor for the same accident quarter. State explicitly whether loss_adjustment_expense_minor is included and apply that choice consistently. Also output the same ratio computed on written_premium_minor so the two can be compared. The table holds current values with no valuation-date snapshot. Say in one line which comparison this schema cannot support and what you would need to support it.

Approach

1. Derive the accident quarter from as_of_month with date_trunc, and note that the table already attributes losses to the month of the loss event while earning premium pro rata into the same month, which is what makes the two sides comparable at all.
2. Aggregate earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor and the three loss components to product_line and accident quarter in one pass, keeping loss adjustment expense as its own column so the inclusion choice is a final-select decision rather than something buried in a CTE.
3. Compute both ratios side by side and a third column for their difference, because the size and sign of that difference is a direct read on whether the book grew or shrank in the quarter.
4. State the limitation plainly: every row carries today's reserve estimate, so each accident quarter is observed at a different development age and a cross-quarter comparison mixes development with underwriting. A fixed development age needs a valuation-date dimension, that is one row per accident period per valuation, which this table does not have.
5. Guard against the mirror-image error on the numerator by confirming ibnr_reserve_minor is non-zero on recent quarters; if it is null or zero there, the recent periods are understated twice over and the series is not usable.

Worked solution (40 min)

1. CTE quarterly: group fct_policy_period_monthly by product_line and date_trunc('quarter', as_of_month), summing earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor and loss_adjustment_expense_minor.
2. Final SELECT: build incurred_minor as the three loss components plus the LAE column, with the LAE inclusion written as a named expression so the choice is visible on the page.
3. Emit loss_ratio_earned and loss_ratio_written, both cast to numeric, plus their difference and the written-to-earned premium ratio.
4. Order by product_line and accident quarter, and append the one-line note about the missing valuation dimension to the query as a comment.

Expected result: One row per product_line and accident quarter with earned and written premium, incurred losses, both ratios and their difference. In quarters where written premium exceeds earned, loss_ratio_written is strictly below loss_ratio_earned, and the gap widens with the growth rate.

Verify it yourself

• For a mature product line with flat volume, summed earned premium over a full policy term is close to summed written premium, so the two ratios converge there.
• The sign of loss_ratio_earned minus loss_ratio_written matches the sign of written premium minus earned premium in every quarter, which is an arithmetic identity and not a data finding.
• Recent accident quarters have non-zero ibnr_reserve_minor; a zero there means the numerator is missing its tail and the ratio is understated.
• Within a quarter, loss_ratio_earned divided by loss_ratio_written equals written_premium_minor divided by earned_premium_minor exactly, because both ratios share one numerator. Any deviation means the LAE term was built into one ratio and not the other, which is the real test that the inclusion choice was applied consistently.
• Recomputing with LAE excluded scales each quarter's ratio by incurred_minor / (incurred_minor + lae_minor). That factor is not constant across quarters unless LAE happens to be booked as a fixed fraction of incurred losses, so a uniform shift is evidence about how LAE is loaded, not evidence that the query is self-consistent — use the previous check for that.

Follow-up

• Written premium exceeds earned premium by 18 percent this quarter and by 3 percent two years ago. What happened to the book, and what does it do to each ratio?
• How would you build a development triangle from a valuation-dated version of this table, and what would you use the chain-ladder factors for?
• Statutory presentation conventionally takes the expense ratio on written premium while the loss ratio uses earned. How do you avoid a combined ratio that quietly mixes the two bases?

If you noticed a sudden metric drop in daily active engagement on the mobile app, how would you systematically diagnose the root cause?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
2. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
3. 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?

Define key performance indicators for a new digital lending product aimed at first-time home buyers.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
2. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
3. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

• How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
• Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?

How would you design a product metric framework to measure the success of a new personal budgeting feature in the mobile banking app?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
2. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
3. Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

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

How would you handle an A/B testing scenario where you cannot randomize at the user level due to regulatory or product constraints?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
2. Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
3. Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

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

Walk through how you determine statistical significance and minimum sample sizes for an A/B testing scenario involving a checkout flow redesign.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
2. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
3. Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.

Follow-up

• What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
• What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

Read a segment-sliced result with a fading first-week lift

Medium · multiple comparisons · novelty effects · mix shift

A three-week test of an in-app credit-limit-increase offer had one pre-registered primary metric. The readout also slices 24 secondary segment-by-metric cells, of which three are significant at 0.05 with p-values 0.011, 0.028 and 0.041. The treatment effect on the primary was plus 8.1 percent in calendar week one, plus 3.4 percent in week two and plus 1.5 percent in week three. Say which claims survive, what the decay does and does not prove, and what you tell the sponsor.

Approach

1. Compute what chance alone produces before interpreting any cell. With 24 tests at 0.05 the expected number of false positives is 1.2, the probability of at least one is 1 - 0.95^24 = 0.708, and the probability of three or more under an independence approximation is about 0.12. Three hits is an unremarkable outcome, not a signal.
2. Apply a stated correction rather than a vibe, and be precise about which one the reported numbers can settle. Holm and Bonferroni both begin at 0.05 / 24 = 0.00208, so the smallest p-value alone decides them. Benjamini-Hochberg sorts all m p-values ascending and finds the largest k with p(k) <= k * q / m; at q = 0.10 and m = 24 the rank-k threshold k / 240 starts at 0.00417 and rises to 0.10 at k = 24, so it is a step-up test over the whole family and its verdict cannot be read off the three cells that happened to fall below 0.05. Ask for all 24 p-values, report the surviving set, which may be empty, and demote the rest to hypotheses for a future test.
3. Refuse to call the decay novelty until the competing explanations are ruled out. Three things produce a falling weekly effect: a genuine novelty response from existing users that reverts, a mix shift because week three's exposed population is not week one's, and an effect that is correctly one-shot because a limit increase is taken once per customer.
4. Separate them with concrete cuts. Plot the effect against time since first exposure instead of calendar week, which removes the mix shift. Compare users onboarded during the test, who never saw the previous experience and therefore cannot show novelty, against existing users. Hold back a small fraction of traffic for a long-run read.
5. Fix the estimand to match the mechanism. For a one-shot offer the meaningful quantity is cumulative take-up per exposed user over a fixed horizon, not a weekly rate, and under that estimand a declining weekly rate is exactly what a working feature looks like.
6. Give the sponsor one number with its interval, name the decision it supports, and list the exploratory cells separately under a heading that says they are not results.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Compute the chance baseline: 0.95^24 = 0.292, so P(at least one false positive) = 0.708 and the expected count is 1.2.
2. Settle the corrections the reported numbers can settle. Holm and Bonferroni both require the smallest p-value to clear 0.05 / 24 = 0.00208; 0.011 does not, so neither rejects anything, and that conclusion needs only the one number. Benjamini-Hochberg is different: with m = 24 and q = 0.10 the rank-k threshold is k / 240, which runs 0.00417, 0.00833, 0.0125 for the three reported cells (all three fail their own thresholds) but passes 0.05 at k = 13 (0.05417) and reaches 0.10 at k = 24. Because BH rejects the k smallest hypotheses whenever any p(k) clears its threshold, one of the 21 unreported p-values sitting between 0.05 and its own rank threshold would make BH reject every cell down to rank 1, the three included. Demand the full ordered vector of 24 p-values before stating a BH verdict.
3. Rebuild the weekly series on time since first exposure and overlay new versus existing users, then state which of novelty, mix shift and one-shot mechanics the pattern is consistent with.
4. Recompute the primary as cumulative take-up per exposed user at a fixed 21-day horizon and report that with its confidence interval as the headline.
5. Write the sponsor summary: one confirmatory number, the exploratory cells listed as non-results pending the full p-value vector, and a proposed follow-up test for the single most plausible segment hypothesis.

Expected result: Holm and Bonferroni reject nothing, and that follows from the reported numbers alone: the smallest p-value, 0.011, exceeds 0.05 / 24 = 0.00208. Benjamini-Hochberg at q = 0.10 is not decidable from three p-values, because it is a step-up test over all 24 whose rank-k threshold k / 240 passes 0.05 at k = 13, so the correct move is to demand the full ordered vector and name the condition that would flip it rather than assert that nothing survives. Until that vector arrives the three cells are exploratory, not findings. Only the pre-registered primary is confirmatory, restated as cumulative take-up over a fixed horizon. The 8.1 to 1.5 percent decay is not established as novelty; the correct answer names mix shift and the one-shot nature of a limit increase as competing explanations and gives the cuts that separate them.

Verify it yourself

• Binomial sanity check: P(3 or more hits out of 24 at 0.05) is about 0.12 under independence, so three hits is unremarkable; correlation among the cells makes the true probability higher still.
• BH self-check: the rank-k thresholds k * 0.10 / 24 must run from 0.00417 at k = 1 to 0.10 at k = 24 and cross 0.05 between k = 12 and k = 13. Any BH conclusion that uses only the p-values below 0.05 is ignoring the ranks where the threshold is loosest.
• The cumulative take-up curve per exposed user should be monotone increasing and flatten, while the weekly rate falls. Both are the same data, which is the point.
• New users during the test should show no decay if the decay is novelty. If they decay the same way, novelty is not the explanation.
• Re-run the segment slice on an A/A period: if it also produces two or three significant cells, the slicing procedure itself is the finding.

Follow-up

• The three significant cells are all in the same segment. Does that change your reading, and how would you test whether it is a real interaction rather than three correlated slices of one population?
• Design the long-term holdback: what size, for how long, and what does it cost you in foregone treatment?
• If cumulative take-up is the estimand, what is the right horizon and how do you keep it from being chosen after seeing the data?

Trailing thirty day volume per customer drops week over week

Hard · seasonality · day of week · window alignment

The trailing 30-day settled volume per active customer is down 7 percent against the same metric seven days earlier. Nothing shipped. You have fct_payment_authorization with requested_at, channel, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, plus dim_customer with is_current, kyc_status, onboarded_at and closed_at for the active denominator. Before anyone writes a retention narrative, decide how much of the 7 percent is calendar structure, and hand back a calendar-robust version of the comparison.

Approach

1. Do the window arithmetic first. Thirty days is four whole weeks plus two days, so exactly two weekdays appear five times and the other five appear four times. Sliding the window by seven days changes which two, and card-present and card-not-present volumes differ sharply by weekday.
2. Rebuild on a 28-day window, which contains exactly four of every weekday, and see how much of the 7 percent survives. That single change removes the weekday composition effect with no modelling and no assumptions.
3. Count the structural events inside each window: public holidays, and the billing anchor days that recurring authorizations cluster on. A window holding one fewer month boundary loses a block of recurring volume that has nothing to do with customer behaviour.
4. Decompose by channel, since recurring, card_present and ecommerce have different calendar signatures. A drop concentrated in recurring points at anchor-day placement; one spread evenly across channels does not.
5. Compare year over year at a 364-day lag rather than 365, which preserves weekday alignment, and only then read the residual.
6. Check the denominator on its own. Active customer counts on a trailing window carry their own calendar structure, and a ratio can move because either side moved.

Follow-up

• Which window goes on the executive dashboard, and what do you give up by choosing it?
• How would you handle a holiday that moves between years, so that a 364-day lag still misaligns it?
• If a genuine 2 percent residual survives, what is the smallest cut that tells you whether it is breadth or depth?

Suggested practice checklist

Four days spend equal time on query work, statistics, modelling and product judgement at deliberately shallow depth, which produces a scored map of where you actually stand. The last three days spend everything on the two areas the role weights most, and close by re-running day one to measure movement.

Day 1 — Breadth pass: query fluency

• Solve six prompts spanning aggregation, joins, window functions and date arithmetic in 60 minutes total, stopping at 10 minutes each whether or not it works, and mark every prompt as solved, solved slowly, or stuck.
• For each unsolved prompt write the single blocking sentence (I lost the grain, I did not know the frame clause, I could not express the date boundary) instead of reading the solution.
• Translate one pandas transformation you know well into SQL and one SQL query into pandas, checking that both return the same row count and the same totals.

Deliverable: A scored six-row table, one line per prompt, saved for the day-seven re-run.

Day 2 — Breadth pass: statistics and inference

• Answer ten short questions in writing with nothing open: what a p-value is conditional on, what a 95 percent interval covers across repeated samples, when a paired test is the right one, what the bootstrap estimates, why multiple comparisons inflate false positives, how controlling the family-wise error rate differs from controlling the false discovery rate, what power depends on, what a missed real effect costs a product, the three situations where the central limit theorem does not rescue you (small n, very heavy tails, dependent observations), and what a standard error is the standard deviation of.
• Grade yourself against a reference and count only the answers that were exactly right, not the ones that were nearly right.
• Rewrite the two weakest answers the following morning from memory in full sentences.

Deliverable: Ten graded answers with an honest count of exact hits.

Day 3 — Breadth pass: modelling

• Take one tabular dataset end to end in 90 minutes: a leakage-safe split, a baseline that is not a model (majority class or historical mean), one regularized linear model, one gradient-boosted tree, and a single evaluation metric chosen before you look at any result.
• Write why that metric fits the cost structure: precision at a fixed recall for alerting, calibration for anything feeding a price or a threshold, ranking metrics for retrieval, and note that area under the ROC curve is insensitive to class balance in a way that can flatter a rare-positive problem.
• Name the leak you were most likely to introduce (an encoding fit on all rows before splitting, or a feature computed after the label's timestamp) and write the check that would have caught it.

Deliverable: A notebook whose first cell states the metric and the baseline, plus two lines on what beat what and by how much.

Day 4 — Breadth pass: product judgement

• Answer three case prompts aloud at 15 minutes each, timing how long passes before you state a success metric.
• For one case write the first segmentation you would run and the row counts you expect per segment, so that a tiny segment cannot quietly drive the conclusion.
• Take a metric definition you did not write, from a public dashboard, a textbook, or documentation you already have open, and list every place two analysts implementing it would diverge: which rows the denominator admits, whether the unit is an account or a person, what the time window is anchored to, and what happens to data that arrives late. Then write the one question that would close the largest of those gaps.

Deliverable: Three recorded case answers plus an ambiguity list for a metric someone else defined, ending in the single question you would ask about it.

Day 5 — Depth, first area

• Rank the four areas by how many bullet points in the role description each one covers, pick the top one, and spend the entire day inside it.
• Work the six hardest problems you can find in that area and for each write the generalizable move you should have reached for first, rather than the answer.
• Re-solve the two you failed the same evening with notes closed.

Deliverable: Six generalizable moves written as instructions to yourself, not as solutions.

Day 6 — Depth, second area, and the seam between them

• Repeat the depth protocol on the second-ranked area with the same six-problem structure.
• Construct one problem that requires both areas at once, for example a metric redefinition whose effect you must validate with a test whose readout you then have to query.
• Solve your own combined problem end to end and note where the handoff between the two areas cost you time.

Deliverable: One combined problem, solved end to end, with the handoff failure written down.

Day 7 — Integration and re-measurement

• Re-run the six prompts from day one under the same clock and compare both correctness and time.
• Run a 60-minute mixed mock that moves between areas without warning, since switching cost is what breadth passes do not train.
• Write the two areas you would still fail on, and the sentence you will use in the interview when you hit one of them.

Deliverable: A before-and-after score table plus a written plan for the two remaining gaps.

Rigour against a deadline

Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.

Share an example of how you handled a disagreement with a cross-functional partner regarding product direction or feature prioritization.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
3. Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

State honestly what your cutoff change actually contributed

Hard · impact attribution · swap set · counterfactual

Six months ago your recommendation moved a credit cutoff, using fct_loan_application and fct_loan_performance_monthly. Since then approval rate rose four points and the 12-month vintage 90-plus rate on affected cohorts is flat. In the same window the bureau changed a score attribute, marketing shifted channel mix toward broker, and the internal funding rate moved. Your performance review asks for impact in currency terms. Give the number you would stand behind, the counterfactual it rests on, and the part of the observed movement you would not claim.

Approach

1. Define the counterfactual before computing anything: the claim is not what happened after the change, it is what would have happened had the old cutoff scored the same applications, which means replaying the old threshold on the post-change population.
2. Build the swap set: applications the new cutoff approves that the old one declined, applications the old one approved that the new one declines, and everyone else held out as unaffected. Only the swap groups carry your effect. Note that the swap-out group has no outcome under the new rule, because those loans were never funded, so its forgone margin must be estimated from matched pre-change approvals rather than observed.
3. Price each swap group at months_on_book equal to 12 on the measure the cutoff was meant to move: interest and fees collected, minus net charge-offs, minus funding cost at the internal transfer rate.
4. Strip the confounders explicitly. Cohorts affected by the bureau attribute change are either recomputed on the old attribute or excluded; channel mix is held fixed by reweighting to the pre-change mix; funding cost is charged at the rate in force each month rather than one blended average.
5. State the residual you will not claim, with its size, and give a range rather than a point wherever cohorts have not yet reached 12 months on book.

Follow-up

• The swap-in group is only 6 percent of applications. How does that change the way you present the number, and to whom?
• What would you have needed to set up at launch to make this attribution clean, and why was a randomised band around the cutoff not used?

Recommend a decision whose true outcome matures a year later

Hard · decision under censoring · leading indicators · staged rollout

An underwriting rule change must be decided in six weeks. Its real outcome, the vintage 90-plus rate at months_on_book 12 in fct_loan_performance_monthly, matures in a year. The executive wants a yes or no, not a range. Randomising the credit decision across the whole population is not available. Name the leading indicator you would accept, state its bias and the direction of that bias, define the decision rule and stopping condition before any rollout starts, and say what reading would make you recommend reversing the change.

Approach

1. Fix the readout before the rollout, because a readout chosen after the data arrives is a story rather than a decision rule: indicator, window, threshold and reversal condition all go in writing first.
2. Choose the leading indicator on its measured relationship to the matured outcome in historical vintages rather than on availability. Early delinquency, typically the share reaching dpd_1_29 or missing a first scheduled payment by months_on_book 3, is the usual candidate, and you quantify how well it predicted the 12-month rate across past cohorts.
3. State the bias and its direction plainly: early delinquency under-represents default that emerges later and is contaminated by servicing and payment-date effects, so treat it as a floor on risk rather than an estimate of it.
4. Buy identification where full randomisation is unavailable: a narrow randomised approval band around the cutoff, or a staged rollout by channel or region read as a difference-in-differences, with the parallel-trends assumption stated and checked in the pre-period rather than assumed.
5. Give the executive the binary they asked for with the trigger attached in the same sentence: yes, conditional on the month-3 indicator staying inside a stated band, with an automatic hold if it breaches.

Follow-up

• How would you validate that the month-3 indicator predicts the 12-month outcome, and what evidence would invalidate it mid-rollout?
• Compliance refuses a randomised band. What is your next-best identification strategy, and what precision do you lose by taking it?