Interview guides · Complexio

Complexio Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Complexio software engineer prep on databases: indexes, query plans, and the anomalies an isolation level still permits.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Complexio, you are tasked with building the high-performance foundations that power the company’s technical ecosystem. This role is critical to the organization’s ability to scale effectively and maintain the reliability of its core services. You will be expected to move beyond simple task execution and instead contribute to the architectural integrity and long-term maintainability of the codebase.

Getting the code to run is the floor. What usually separates answers is the case checked without prompting: empty input, a single element, duplicate keys, or a value that overflows the integer type you chose.

Focus areas

Bound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits
Evolve APIs without breaking pinned SDK clients
Build at-least-once pipelines with explicit deduplication horizons

Overview

The work you perform involves navigating complex technical challenges, often requiring a deep understanding of containerization, infrastructure, and modern programming languages like Golang. You will work in an environment that prioritizes speed and technical precision, contributing to projects that directly impact the efficiency of Complexio’s product offerings. Success in this role requires not only strong coding proficiency but also the ability to reason about systems at a structural level.

The Complexio interview process

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

Initial Screening

Half of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.

What to demonstrate

Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not

How to prepare

Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window

Technical Assessments

Input bounds are the part of the prompt most often skimmed, and they usually contain the answer. They tell you which complexity class is admissible, which narrows the search before you have thought about the problem itself. As a rough planning figure, a compiled language does on the order of 10^8 simple operations per second and an interpreted one roughly an order of magnitude less. So n up to about twenty admits enumerating subsets, a few thousand admits a quadratic pass, and a million admits neither: you need near-linear, or linear with a log factor. If the bounds are missing, ask for them.

What to demonstrate

Whether the approach is justified by the stated input size rather than by whichever pattern you recognised first
Whether you ask about the properties that change the algorithm: whether the input arrives sorted, whether duplicates occur, whether values are bounded integers, whether it all fits in memory
Whether you can name the bottleneck in your own solution and what would remove it, even when you deliberately leave it in place
Whether a claimed speedup is real, since memoising a recursion only helps when subproblems genuinely overlap and the state can be keyed cheaply

How to prepare

For each algorithm you rely on, write down the largest n it handles in roughly a second, then check two of those figures by timing them in the language you will actually type in
For two weeks, write one line naming your target complexity and the bound that justifies it before you write any code, then compare that line with what you ended up submitting
Practise the conversion backwards: given a required O(n log n), list the mechanisms that get you there (sorting, a heap, an ordered map, divide and conquer) and choose by what the problem needs to query, not by what you used last

Discussion with Leadership

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

One shared connection pool for every tenant and every query class

A single tenant with a large table and a missing index can occupy every connection with slow queries, and every other tenant then waits in connection acquisition -- a queue invisible in database metrics, because the database itself looks healthy while the application starves. Containment is bulkheads: separate pools or per-tenant concurrency caps for interactive requests, background jobs and exports, a statement timeout low enough that a pathological query dies before it accumulates, and an idle-in-transaction timeout so a stuck client cannot pin a connection and its locks indefinitely. One caveat worth knowing in advance: if a transaction-pooling proxy sits in front of the database, session-scoped behaviour changes, so session-level advisory locks and settings applied outside a transaction do not survive the way they do on a direct connection.

Treating a timed-out write as a failed write

A timeout says the response did not arrive, not that the work did not happen; the server may well have committed and then lost the connection. Retrying a non-idempotent create after a timeout is the standard way to end up with two of something, and those duplicates land precisely when the system is already degraded and least able to absorb them. The discipline is to treat a timeout as unknown: either the write carries an idempotency key so the retry is safe by construction, or the client re-reads authoritative state before deciding what to do, and the interface says unknown rather than showing a failure that invites a second click.

Assuming fixed-width integer arithmetic cannot overflow

In languages with fixed-width integers, including C, C++, Java, Go and Rust, computing a midpoint as (lo + hi) / 2 overflows once the sum passes the type's maximum, so write lo + (hi - lo) / 2 instead. Say which language you are in: arbitrary-precision integers, as in Python or Ruby, remove this specific hazard and none of the others.

Assuming the input fits in memory

Ask how large the input is in bytes before committing to an in-memory algorithm; beyond that point the options are a single streaming pass, an external sort with bounded buffers, or a sketch that trades exactness for constant memory. An algorithm that assumes random access to the whole input is a different algorithm from one that sees each element once.

Questions & practice

Given two Dockerfiles, what are the functional differences?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

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

What is the output of this specific Golang code snippet?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

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

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (15 min)

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

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

Verify it yourself

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

Follow-up

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

Find the join that inflates every invoice total

Medium · join fan-out · aggregation grain · sql correctness

invoice_line_item holds line_id, invoice_id, tenant_id, sku, rate_tier, quantity, unit_price_micros, amount_minor (bigint), currency, kind, voided_at. invoice_payment_attempt holds attempt_id, invoice_id, tenant_id, amount_minor, status (succeeded, failed, pending), created_at, and an invoice has many attempts. A finance report runs select i.invoice_id, sum(l.amount_minor), count(p.attempt_id) from invoice i join invoice_line_item l using (invoice_id) join invoice_payment_attempt p using (invoice_id) group by 1 and the totals are wrong. Say precisely what the sum now equals, and write a version that is also correct for invoices with zero attempts.

Approach

Compute what the query actually returns before fixing it. The two joins form a Cartesian product per invoice, so each line row repeats once per attempt row: sum(l.amount_minor) is the true total multiplied by the attempt count, and count(p.attempt_id) is attempts times lines. Three lines and two attempts report double the money and six attempts.
Reject the reflex repair. count(distinct p.attempt_id) does fix the count, because attempt_id is unique. sum(distinct l.amount_minor) does not fix the sum, because two legitimate lines with equal amounts collapse into one. DISTINCT inside an aggregate deduplicates values, not rows, and the difference stays invisible until two lines happen to match.
Aggregate each branch to invoice grain before joining: one CTE summing lines by invoice_id, one counting attempts by invoice_id, then join the two results. A LATERAL subquery per invoice is equivalent and sometimes plans better when the outer set is small. Either way every aggregate stays at the grain it was defined at.
Keep invoices with no attempts by making the attempt branch a LEFT JOIN with coalesce(attempt_count, 0). An inner join here silently drops every unpaid invoice, which is usually the exact population finance is asking about.
Push each filter to its own grain: where l.voided_at is null belongs inside the line CTE, not the outer query, or it would also filter the attempt branch through the join. Put the tenant predicate on both branches, since the denormalised tenant_id is what stops a wrong join crossing tenants.
Leave yourself a standing check: an invoice total is a function of its non-voided lines and of nothing about payments, so if changing the payment filter moves the money figure, the fan-out is back.

Worked solution (25 min)

Create one invoice with three lines of 1000, 1000 and 500 minor units and two payment attempts, then run the original query.
Confirm it reports 5000 and 6 rather than 2500 and 2.
Apply sum(distinct l.amount_minor) and confirm the total becomes 1500, which is worse rather than better.
Write the two-CTE version with a LEFT JOIN and coalesce, and confirm 2500 and 2.
Add a second invoice with lines and no attempts and confirm it still appears.

Expected result: The original sum equals the true line total multiplied by the number of payment attempts and the count equals attempts times lines; the corrected query pre-aggregates each branch to invoice grain in separate CTEs and LEFT JOINs them with coalesce, with voided lines excluded inside the line CTE and the tenant predicate applied to both branches.

Verify it yourself

The money total is unchanged by adding or removing payment attempts.
An invoice with zero attempts appears with its total and a zero count.
Two lines with identical amounts both contribute to the total.
Voiding a line changes the money figure and leaves the attempt count alone.

Follow-up

Add a third branch for credit notes applied to the invoice. Does the CTE shape still hold, and when would a single pass with filter (where ...) be better?
Over 500k invoices this report takes minutes. Which grain would you materialise, and how do you keep it correct when a line is voided?
The same report is needed per tenant per month. What index makes the line CTE cheap?

Rebuild an hourly rollup with deduplication and late-arrival accounting

Hard · window functions · deduplication · event time vs ingest time · watermarks

From usage_event (event_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at, ingested_at), produce the values usage_rollup_hourly should hold for one tenant over one day: per (workspace_id, sku, hour_start) the deduplicated quantity_sum, event_count and source_max_ingested_at, bucketed by occurred_at. Duplicates share (tenant_id, idempotency_key). Also report, per hour, the running total across the day and the share of quantity that arrived more than two hours after the hour began. Write the query, and state which duplicates a daily unique index cannot catch.

Approach

Deduplicate in its own CTE before any aggregation, because a SUM cannot be un-summed: row_number() over (partition by tenant_id, idempotency_key order by ingested_at, event_id) = 1. Include the tiebreaker. Without it the surviving row is non-deterministic when two duplicates share an ingested_at, and a rollup described as deterministically recomputable then disagrees with itself between runs.
Bucket on occurred_at and nothing else, and pin the timezone explicitly. date_trunc('hour', timestamptz) truncates in the session's TimeZone setting, so the same query run by a session set to a non-UTC zone buckets differently; use the three-argument date_trunc('hour', occurred_at, 'UTC') on PostgreSQL 16 or later, or date_trunc('hour', occurred_at at time zone 'UTC') at time zone 'UTC' before that. Filter environment = 'production' explicitly, since metering covers three environments and billing covers one.
Aggregate to the grain with sum(quantity), count(*) and max(ingested_at). The last is not decoration: it is the watermark the row consumed up to, and without it there is no way to prove afterwards what a number did and did not include.
Compute the late share inside the dedup-and-aggregate step as a conditional aggregate, sum(quantity) filter (where ingested_at > hour_start + interval '2 hours'), then divide by the hour's total. Compute the running total as a window over the already aggregated rows: sum(quantity_sum) over (partition by workspace_id, sku order by hour_start rows between unbounded preceding and current row). Running either over raw rows puts the duplicates back.
Answer the index question exactly. The unique constraint is on (ingested_day, tenant_id, idempotency_key), because a unique index on a partitioned table must contain the partition key. It therefore deduplicates only within one ingest day and admits a duplicate whose retry crosses midnight or whose replay runs a week later. That is why this CTE dedups across the whole window being recomputed, and why the dedup horizon is a correctness parameter rather than a retention cost.
Keep the numeric type all the way through. quantity is numeric so the sums are exact; a cast to double precision anywhere in this pipeline reintroduces drift that surfaces only as a few unreconcilable cents per tenant per month, long after the query is out of anyone's mind.

Follow-up

A dispute forces the same recompute over 40 days for one tenant. What changes about the dedup CTE's memory use and the chosen plan, and what would you do about it?
Two runs a minute apart return different quantity_sum values for an hour that is already closed. Give two mechanisms that produce that, and the single query that distinguishes them.
Express the same rollup incrementally so it does not re-scan the day each time the watermark advances. What does the incremental version stop being able to answer?

Can you explain the internals of Docker?

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Explain the SOLID principles and how you apply them in your code.

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.

Follow-up

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

Publish limit semantics that clients can back off against

Medium · rate limiting · quotas · degraded mode

The gateway enforces three separate limits: a per-tenant token bucket, a monthly plan quota, and a cap on concurrent in-flight requests. Tenants hold several credentials and call from three regions, and today they see undifferentiated 429s. Design the client-facing contract: which headers carry which limit, the status codes that distinguish slow down from out of plan allowance from too many in flight, and what a well-behaved SDK does for each. Also state what the gateway returns when the shared counter store is unreachable, and what bound that choice implies.

Approach

Separate the three objects before naming a header. A bucket refills continuously, a quota does not refill until the period rolls, and a concurrency cap clears when an in-flight request finishes. They have different remedies, so they cannot share a status code.
Map them accordingly: 429 with Retry-After for the bucket, where waiting works; 429 with a distinct code and a reset hint for concurrency, where waiting works only if something else completes; and 402 or 403 with a plan code for quota, where waiting never works and the SDK must surface it rather than sleep on it.
Emit RateLimit-Limit, RateLimit-Remaining and RateLimit-Reset for the bucket only, and document Remaining as advisory. It comes from a shared counter that other requests are changing concurrently, so a client treating it as a reservation has built a race.
State the aggregation in the docs: the limit applies per tenant across every credential and every region. The cheap per-pod bucket of rate/N is correct only when traffic spreads evenly, and a tenant whose connections land on a few pods is throttled well under its published limit while a widely spread one exceeds it.
Decide the degraded mode in advance and publish it. Failing open serves unmetered traffic during a counter outage; failing closed converts a counter outage into a total outage. Pick one, bound it, for example a local fallback bucket at a fraction of the limit for the duration, and say so in the contract.
Specify SDK behaviour: honour Retry-After over local backoff, apply full jitter otherwise, never retry 402 or 403, and cap total attempts so retries expire before the caller's own deadline.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write a three-row table of limit, refill behaviour, status code, headers, and the client's correct action.
Write the exact header set for one throttled response and one quota-exhausted response, showing that they differ.
Write the documentation sentence that states aggregation across credentials and regions, and the sentence marking Remaining advisory.
Choose and justify the counter-store failure behaviour, then state the numeric bound it puts on overage or on availability.
Write the SDK's decision function: given status and headers, return sleep duration or surface to the caller.

Expected result: Three distinguishable responses, with Retry-After authoritative on the two retryable ones, quota exhaustion never retried, Remaining documented as advisory, and a named degraded-mode behaviour carrying an explicit overage or availability bound.

Verify it yourself

A client can tell the three conditions apart without parsing prose.
Exactly one of the three conditions is documented as never worth retrying.
The aggregation statement mentions credentials and regions, not just the tenant.
The degraded-mode answer names a number, not only a direction.

Follow-up

Two services under the same tenant each read Remaining = 50 and each send 50 requests. What did the contract promise, and what actually happens?
How would you keep a burst from a staging workspace out of the production workspace's share of the same tenant's bucket?

Gateway p99 spikes on a five-minute cadence

Medium · cache stampede · ttl · invalidation

edge-gateway caches each credential-to-authorisation-context decision for five minutes. p99 sits at 6 ms except for a spike to 900 ms roughly every five minutes, worst in the region with the most pods, and control-plane CPU and read latency rise in step with it. The error rate stays near zero. Customers are told a revoked credential stops authorising within 60 seconds. Give the ordered checklist that identifies the mechanism, and a fix that removes the spike without weakening the 60-second bound.

Approach

Test periodicity before anything else: take the spike timestamps modulo the TTL in seconds. A tight cluster at a fixed offset means expiry phase, while traffic-driven spikes scatter.
Overlay pod start times. Entries filled at first request inherit the phase of the pod that filled them, so a cohort of pods deployed together expires together and the amplitude should track cohort size rather than tenant count.
Separate a herd from a capacity shortfall by measuring control-plane requests per second during a spike against baseline. A stampede shows a step of roughly (pods x hot keys) for one interval with hit rate collapsing to near zero, not a gradual climb that would indicate the dependency is simply undersized.
Apply three independent controls: randomise each key's TTL by a factor drawn uniformly from something like 0.8 to 1.0 so cohorts de-phase; coalesce concurrent misses per key per pod so exactly one refresh is in flight; and serve the stale value while that refresh runs so a miss costs the stale read rather than the dependency's queue.
Bound staleness against the published contract rather than against comfort: serve-stale is admissible only up to the 60-second revocation bound, so the TTL floor and the stale window together must stay inside it, and the published invalidation must delete the entry rather than schedule a refresh.
Decide in advance what a miss does when the control plane is unreachable, because that is now the only uncached path: failing closed converts a dependency outage into a total outage, while extending stale service past the bound breaks the revocation promise. Pick one and configure it explicitly.

Follow-up

Publish-subscribe invalidation is lossy under a partition. Given that, what actually enforces the 60-second bound, and what number would you put in the contract if asked to defend it?
One tenant's key is hot enough that a single pod's coalesced refresh still matters. What changes?
Would a shared cache tier in front of the control plane help or shift the problem, and what new failure does it add?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate senior enough that the loop turns on design and judgement rather than on whether the coding round gets finished. Five days build one system properly and then stress it; coding gets a single maintenance day, on the assumption that the risk at this level is an unexamined tradeoff rather than a missed algorithm.

Day 1 — Numbers before diagrams

Build your own reference card of the figures you will re-derive all week: bytes for a realistic record, requests per second implied by a given daily active count, and the storage that a year at a given write rate produces. Derive each one rather than copying it, because the derivation is what survives a follow-up.
Turn one product statement into capacity requirements. From ten million daily users at four writes and forty reads each, state the peak-to-average factor you are assuming and why, then produce peak write QPS, peak read QPS and a year of storage.
Write the two numbers whose order of magnitude changes the design, the read-to-write ratio and the working-set size against memory per node, and state the threshold at which each one flips your answer.

Deliverable: A one-page numbers card and one worked capacity estimate with every assumption written down.

Day 2 — One system, from requirements to schema

Spend the first ten minutes producing only functional requirements, non-functional targets with numbers attached, a p99 latency, a durability expectation, a consistency requirement, and an explicit out-of-scope list.
Define the interface before the boxes: the three or four endpoints, their parameters, what each returns, and which of them are idempotent.
Write the data model, then write the single access pattern that justifies it, and state what the schema would have to become if the dominant access pattern were the other one.

Deliverable: One design carried to endpoint-and-schema depth, with non-functional targets expressed as numbers and a written out-of-scope list.

Day 3 — The consistency you are actually buying

Write out what a client sees under asynchronous replication when its write commits on the leader and its next read is served by a lagging follower, then write the two fixes, pinning that session's reads to the leader for a bounded window or carrying a version token the replica must reach, and the cost of each.
Work the quorum arithmetic on paper for N of three with W and R of two, and separate what R + W > N does guarantee, that any read set intersects any write set, from what it does not: on its own it is not linearizability, and a sloppy quorum that accepts writes on nodes outside the preference list breaks even the intersection.
Take two storage choices with different defaults, a single-leader relational store committing synchronously and a quorum-replicated store that converges eventually, and write the specific product behaviour that would be wrong under each, rather than a general statement about which is stronger.

Deliverable: A page separating what quorum overlap guarantees from what it does not, with one concrete product misbehaviour attached to each gap.

Day 4 — Failure is the design

For one write path, work through the case where the client times out after the server has already committed, then design the idempotency key: who generates it, how long it is retained, and what the duplicate request returns.
Express the retry policy as parameters rather than as a word: maximum attempts, base delay, backoff factor, jitter, and which error classes are retried at all. Then state why retrying a non-idempotent write without a key is a correctness bug and not merely waste.
Compute the fan-out effect on tail latency. If a request waits on ten backends and each independently exceeds its p99 one percent of the time, the chance at least one is slow is 1 - 0.99^10, about ten percent. Then write why independence is the optimistic assumption and what correlates them in practice.
Name the backpressure mechanism for one queue or one dependency in the design, a bounded queue with shedding or a concurrency limit, and write what the caller is told when it engages.

Deliverable: One write path with an idempotency design, a parameterised retry policy, and a written tail-latency calculation with its assumption named.

Day 5 — Scaling the hot path

Choose cache-aside or write-through for one read path and write the staleness window each produces, then name the invalidation event and what the system does when that event is lost.
Design against the stampede: either coalesce requests so only one recomputes a missing key, or refresh early with jittered expiry, and write why identical TTLs on keys populated in the same moment produce a synchronised expiry and a thundering herd.
Shard one table by a key you choose, then answer the two questions that break the choice: which queries now require a scatter-gather, and what happens to the distribution when one tenant is a hundred times larger than the median.
Write the cost of adding a node under plain modulo placement, where nearly every key moves, against consistent hashing, where roughly one key in n+1 moves, and state what virtual nodes are for.

Deliverable: A caching and sharding decision for one path, each with its failure mode and its rebalancing cost written beside it.

Day 6 — Keep the coding hand in, at the bar that applies to you

Solve one medium problem in thirty minutes, then spend twenty more making it production-shaped: named invariants, validation at the boundary, and errors that distinguish a caller mistake from an internal fault.
Write the tests you would require of a colleague's version of that function: one for empty input, one for the boundary, and one for the case the implementation is most likely to get wrong.
Read a piece of your own code from six months ago and write the change you would ask for, phrased as you would actually phrase it in review.

Deliverable: One problem hardened to review standard, with its test list and one written review comment.

Day 7 — Defend it while being interrupted

Run a forty-five-minute design mock with an interviewer briefed to change a requirement halfway, a tenfold traffic increase or a new strict consistency requirement, and to push on one number you estimated.
Rehearse the two sentences a senior loop is listening for: naming the tradeoff you are choosing against and why, and saying what you would measure to learn that the choice was wrong.
Prepare the design you regret: a real decision, the constraint that produced it, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards.

Deliverable: Mock notes recording how the design changed under the new requirement, plus a written account of one regretted decision.

Scope is read from what you decided

Team size, service count and tickets closed say very little. Seniority shows in the decision you owned: what you chose not to build, which constraint you traded away, whose objection you had to resolve before anything could move. A large project where you executed someone else's plan is a small story.

Tell me about a time when you faced a significant technical challenge.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

What do you know about our company?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

Ship metered billing with a named deduplication horizon

Medium · technical debt · deduplication · deadline pressure · detectors

Metered billing must be on in three weeks. usage_event is partitioned daily, so its unique index must include the partition key and deduplicates only within a day: a producer retry that crosses midnight, or a replay run a week later, gets through. A cross-partition dedup store is two weeks you do not have. Describe shipping with debt you named in advance: what you shipped, what you wrote down, the detector you added, the trigger and date for paying it off, and what you would have refused to ship under the same pressure.

Approach

Show you can separate the two kinds of debt, because that distinction is what the question actually probes. Debt that costs engineering time later is shippable on a deadline. Debt that silently corrupts a number a customer gets charged for is not shippable unless the corruption is detectable, and detectability is the whole negotiation.
Make the exposure narrow and measured rather than gestural. The hole is duplicates whose occurrences straddle a UTC day boundary, plus any replay older than partition retention. Measure it before arguing about it: how often an idempotency_key recurs at all, and the distribution of the gap between first and last occurrence. If the ninety-ninth percentile of that gap is four minutes, the residual risk is a small band around midnight and you can say so numerically.
Add the detector before the feature, not after. A nightly job counting keys that appear in more than one partition is one grouped scan over recent partitions, and it converts a silent overcount into a page. State what it costs to run and what it fires on.
Buy the cheap half of the real fix immediately: extend partition retention so the dedup horizon exceeds the producer's maximum retry window plus the longest replay you intend to support. That reframes retention as a correctness parameter rather than a storage cost, which is the sentence you need on record before someone optimises the bill.
Make repayment mechanical instead of aspirational: a dated entry with a named owner, plus a threshold that pulls the date forward — first detector hit above N events, or first customer dispute. Debt with a trigger gets paid; debt with only a date does not.
Answer the second half honestly by naming what you would refuse under identical pressure: the sealing path, because a sealed row is frozen and a wrong number there stops being a bug and becomes an adjustment line, a dispute and an audit question.

Follow-up

The detector fires on forty duplicate events for one tenant, and two of their invoices have already sealed. What happens next?
Whom did you tell that the billing numbers had a known hole, and in what words?
Finance asks you to cut storage by shortening partition retention. What do you say, and to whom?