Interview guides · Credit Acceptance

Credit Acceptance Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Credit Acceptance Machine Learning Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, practice questions with worked solutions and a 7-day prep plan.

The 60-second brief

A Machine Learning Engineer at Credit Acceptance is a pivotal role positioned at the intersection of advanced predictive analytics and financial services. You will be responsible for building, deploying, and maintaining sophisticated models that directly influence the company’s ability to assess risk, optimize lending decisions, and drive business performance. Your work is not just about building models; it is about translating complex data patterns into actionable intelligence that scales across the organization.

Treat capacity estimation as a conversion skill rather than a table to memorise: turn a user count and an action rate into requests per second and bytes per day, then name the component that number breaks first. The figure only matters if it changes the design.

Focus areas

Detect concurrent edits instead of losing writes
Make every write idempotent under retry
Bound every outbound call with a timeout

Overview

This role is critical because Credit Acceptance relies heavily on data-driven decision-making to maintain its competitive edge in the market. You will contribute to high-impact projects that involve large-scale datasets, requiring a balance of rigorous engineering practices and deep statistical intuition. Whether you are working as a Senior Analyst or in a Staff capacity, you will be expected to influence technical strategy and collaborate with cross-functional teams to ensure that machine learning solutions are both robust and aligned with business objectives.

The Credit Acceptance interview process

Credit Acceptance candidates report 4 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 Evaluations

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Team Discussions

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.

Final Round Interviews

A day like this is several different games in a row, and the expensive mistake is carrying the previous one into the next room. Coding rewards narrow precision and finishing inside a timer. Design rewards breadth, stated assumptions and naming what you are deliberately not building. Behavioural rewards specificity about people and decisions. Candidates who over-engineer a coding problem they were supposed to finish, or who start sketching class hierarchies before anyone has agreed what the system has to do, are usually still playing the last round. Between rooms, name out loud which game the next one is.

What to demonstrate

Whether the coding round ends with something that runs and has been traced against a degenerate input, rather than an extensible design that was never finished
Whether a design discussion opens by agreeing on traffic shape, read-to-write ratio and what is allowed to be stale, instead of proceeding from an architecture you arrived with
Whether a behavioural answer names a person, a disagreement and what you did about it, rather than describing the system the story happened inside
Whether the opening habits still appear late in the day: restating the problem, asking for constraints, saying the plan before typing

How to prepare

Book three mocks of different types back to back on one afternoon and ask each interviewer afterwards which round you answered in the wrong mode
Write a three-line opening script per round type — coding: restate, name the approach and its cost, then type; design: ask for scale, read-write mix and what must not break; behavioural: name the person, the stakes and the decision — and run it off a card so the switch is mechanical rather than remembered
Practise coding with a timer you do not extend, stopping when it stops, so the trained reflex is to finish a correct solution rather than to keep improving one

Where candidates lose points

Choosing an index from the columns a query mentions rather than from how it filters and orders

A composite B-tree index on (a, b, c) can be seeked only as a left prefix: equality on a, then equality on b, then a range or an ordering on c. A query that filters on b alone cannot seek into it at all and at best gets a full scan of the index; a query that filters a and ranges on b gets no benefit from c, because the index is only sorted by c within a fixed (a, b) pair. The practical consequence is that one index per column is close to useless for multi-predicate queries while a single correctly ordered composite index turns a scan into a lookup. The ordering half is what gets missed: if the index cannot satisfy the ORDER BY, the database must read every matching row and sort before the limit can apply, so a LIMIT 20 over a million matching rows still reads a million rows.

Shipping a migration and the code that depends on it as a single change

During any rolling deploy, and for as long as a rollback remains possible, old and new code execute against the same schema at the same time. A migration that drops or renames a column breaks every instance that has not restarted yet, and code that requires a column the migration has not applied breaks every instance that restarted early. The discipline is expand then contract: add the new column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, move reads across once the backfill is verified, and only then stop writing the old shape and drop it - four deploys, usually spread over days. It feels disproportionate until the first rollback, at which point it is the only reason the previous version still runs.

Never running a concrete value through the code

Trace one small input and one edge input by hand, index by index, out loud. Re-reading your own code catches design mistakes; walking a real value through it catches the off-by-one, the uninitialised accumulator and the loop that never advances.

Tests that assert on the implementation rather than the behaviour

Assert on what a caller can observe, not on the number of internal calls or the shape of a private field. A test that breaks on every refactor but still passes when the answer is wrong costs more than it protects.

Questions & practice

Describe your process for validating a model before it is deployed to a production environment.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

Explain the trade-offs between interpretability and predictive power in machine learning models.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

How do you approach feature engineering when working with historical transaction data?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.

Follow-up

What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Merge partitioned event streams into one ordered feed with bounded lateness

Hard · k-way merge · watermarks · out-of-order streams

The read-model service consumes 64 log partitions carrying about 4,000 events per second in total. Each partition is ordered within itself, but partitions drift by up to 30 seconds, and the activity feed must present a tenant's events in occurred_at order. Produce the merge. State its complexity, the buffer it requires in events and in bytes, what happens when one partition is idle, and what you do with an event that arrives after you have already emitted its position. Payloads average 1 KB.

Approach

Merge with a min-heap over the 64 partition heads keyed on (occurred_at, event_id): O(log P) per event and O(n log P) overall. The tie-break on event_id is what makes the output deterministic when two partitions carry the same millisecond, which matters because the feed is paginated and a non-deterministic order reorders pages under the reader.
Emitting the heap head is only correct once every partition has produced everything up to that timestamp, so the emit condition is a watermark: the minimum across partitions of the highest occurred_at seen, less the allowed lateness. Events are held until the watermark passes them, which is what turns individually ordered streams into a jointly ordered one.
Size the buffer from the lateness rather than guessing: 4,000 events per second times 30 seconds is 120,000 buffered events, and at 1 KB each about 120 MB of heap. That number is the real price of the ordering guarantee and belongs in front of whoever asked for it.
Handle the idle partition explicitly, because it fails the feed rather than corrupting it: a partition with no traffic never advances its own maximum, so the watermark freezes and output stops entirely. Either every partition emits a periodic idle marker carrying the broker's current time, or the watermark falls back to wall clock for a partition silent beyond a threshold.
Choose the late-event policy from what the projection is keyed on. The projection upserts on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and discards a version it has already applied, so a late event is safe to apply out of order and correctness never depended on the merge at all. Apply it, recompute the affected feed page, and count lateness so the 30-second budget can be re-derived from data rather than folklore.
Say what the merge does not buy: ordering is guaranteed within one aggregate by the log's partitioning, and no watermark makes the cross-aggregate order authoritative. Two events from different aggregates in the same millisecond have no true order, so the feed's order is a presentation choice that must be stable rather than correct.

Worked solution (35 min)

Write the heap comparator on (occurred_at, event_id) and the per-partition head refill.
Write the watermark computation and the emit-loop condition, then list which buffered events are held at a chosen instant.
Compute the buffer at 4,000 events per second, 30 seconds and 1 KB per event, and state what fraction of a worker's heap that represents.
Add the idle-partition marker and trace the watermark with one silent partition, both with and without the marker.
Write the late-event path and name the key that makes applying it safe.

Expected result: A 64-way min-heap merge at O(n log P) with a deterministic (occurred_at, event_id) comparator, a watermark of the per-partition minimum less 30 seconds gating emission, a stated buffer of 120,000 events and roughly 120 MB, idle markers so a silent partition cannot freeze the watermark, and a late-event policy justified by the projection's idempotency on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version).

Verify it yourself

Feeding the partitions in an adversarial interleaving produces the same output sequence as feeding them in timestamp order.
Silencing one partition stalls output without the idle marker and does not stall it with the marker.
Applying a late event twice leaves the projection byte-identical, which is what permits the out-of-order path to exist.

Follow-up

The lateness budget is raised to five minutes. What is the new buffer, and what besides memory changes?
The consumer restarts. Where does it resume from, and what does the feed look like for the first 30 seconds?
One partition is ten minutes behind because its producer is slow. Do you stall the feed or emit without it?

Replace offset paging on the resource feed with keyset

Easy · keyset pagination · composite index · sort order

resource holds resource_id, tenant_id, owner_user_id, title, body_ref, version, status ('draft','active','archived','deleted'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at, with an index on (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). The listing endpoint returns active resources for one tenant, newest update first, 50 per page, today with LIMIT 50 OFFSET n. Tenants reach page 400 and rows are created while they read. Write the keyset query, define what the cursor carries and how it is encoded, and say which part of the index each predicate uses. Assume PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Name the two failures separately. OFFSET 20000 makes the server produce and discard 20,000 rows, so page cost grows with depth rather than with page size. Independently, any write that changes how many rows sort above the offset moves the window between two fetches, and the direction decides which anomaly you get: an insert lands at the head of updated_at DESC and pushes already-returned rows down past the boundary, so they are returned a second time; a delete above the offset, or a row whose updated_at is bumped above the cursor, pulls rows up and one is never returned at all. Nothing in the response reveals either.
Write the seek: WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active' AND (updated_at, resource_id) < ($2, $3) ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50. The row-value comparison is one index range rather than a disjunction, and both columns are NOT NULL, which is what makes that comparison well defined.
Map each predicate onto the index: tenant_id and status are equality on the leading columns, (updated_at, resource_id) is the range, and the ORDER BY matches the index order so no Sort node appears and the scan stops after 50 rows. The DESC in the definition only matters for mixed directions — a plain ascending btree on the same columns is read backwards for this query.
Put both sort columns in the cursor and nothing the client can tamper with into another tenant: base64 of (updated_at, resource_id), validated server-side, with tenant_id taken from the principal.
State the residual honestly. Keyset is stable against concurrent inserts and deletes, but not against a row whose updated_at changes mid-scroll — that row moves in the ordering and can be seen twice. If the feed must be a snapshot, order by an immutable key or bound the page set with updated_at <= the cursor's start value.
Keep a total out of the page path. A tenant-wide COUNT(*) is the scan keyset just removed; fetch LIMIT 51 and return has_more instead.

Follow-up

The client asks for 'jump to page 400'. What do you offer instead, and what does the honest version cost?
Sort order becomes user-selectable across four columns. How many indexes is that, and which would you refuse to add?
What does the cursor do when the row it points at has since been deleted?

Stop tag and share joins from fanning out a page

Medium · join fan-out · semi-joins · many-to-many

resource_tag is (resource_id, tag_id) with PK (resource_id, tag_id); resource_share is (resource_id, shared_with_user_id, permission). The tagged-and-shared listing inner-joins resource to both, filters tenant_id, tag_id = ANY($2) and shared_with_user_id = $3, orders by updated_at DESC and takes 50. Pages come back with fewer than 50 distinct resources and the total in the header is far too high. Explain the row multiplication, rewrite both the page query and the count query so each is correct, and name the index each one needs. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Do the arithmetic against the predicates that are actually there. An inner join emits one row per matching child row, and both joins are filtered: tag_id = ANY($2) admits only the requested tags, shared_with_user_id = $3 admits one user's share rows. So a resource holding three of the requested tags and shared with $3 once yields three rows, not one — the multiplier is its count of matching tags times its share rows for that single user, and that second factor is 1 unless the table admits duplicate (resource_id, shared_with_user_id) pairs. LIMIT 50 then limits rows rather than resources, and COUNT(*) counts pairs — the header is the product, not the population.
Reject DISTINCT as the fix. It deduplicates after the product has been built, so the planner must materialise and sort the fanned-out set before the LIMIT can apply, and it leaves any SUM or AVG in the same select list wrong.
Rewrite both filters as semi-joins, keeping resource as the only row source: AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = r.resource_id AND rt.tag_id = ANY($2)) and the same shape against resource_share. A semi-join stops at the first match per resource and preserves the driving index order, so ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50 still stops after 50 rows.
Count with the same predicates and no join at all: SELECT count(*) FROM resource r WHERE r.tenant_id = $1 AND r.status = 'active' AND EXISTS (...) AND EXISTS (...). Nothing multiplies a resource, so the number is the population.
Attach the tags for display after the page has been cut — LEFT JOIN LATERAL (SELECT array_agg(rt.tag_id) FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = p.resource_id) ON TRUE over the 50 returned rows. Aggregate over the page, never over the tenant.
Index both directions and say which query each serves: PK (resource_id, tag_id) serves the lateral lookup, (tag_id, resource_id) serves the EXISTS probe by tag, and resource_share needs (shared_with_user_id, resource_id) for the same reason. An index covering one direction only leaves the other as a scan.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build a tenant where each resource carries 0-5 tags from a 20-tag vocabulary and is shared with 0-4 distinct users, then bind $2 to three tags and $3 to a user holding shares on about half the resources. Run the joined query and compare its row count to the distinct resource count on page one.
Run COUNT(*) on the joined shape and on the EXISTS shape and compare both to a ground truth computed from distinct ids; then give $3 a second permission row on 10% of resources and record which of the two counts moves.
EXPLAIN both page queries and compare rows-read plus the presence of a Sort or HashAggregate node above the join.
Add (tag_id, resource_id), re-run the EXISTS probe, and record the plan change on the inner side.

Expected result: The EXISTS page returns exactly 50 distinct resources and reads about 50 driving rows with no aggregate above the join. The EXISTS count matches the ground truth. The joined COUNT(*) is larger by roughly the average number of matching tags per qualifying resource — the tags it holds from $2, not its total tag count — times its share rows for $3, which is 1 until the duplicate permission rows exist and rises with them afterwards. The EXISTS count is unchanged by those duplicates.

Verify it yourself

The page's resource_id list has no duplicates and is 50 long whenever at least 50 rows match.
count(*) from the rewrite equals count(DISTINCT r.resource_id) over the joined shape.
EXPLAIN shows a semi-join node on the inner side rather than a full join followed by a unique or aggregate step.

Follow-up

The filter changes from 'any of these tags' to 'all of these tags'. Rewrite it and state what it costs relative to the ANY form.
A resource can be shared with the same user twice under different permissions. Does your count change, and should it?
Where does the correct total come from when the tenant holds 4M resources and the header must not cost 200 ms?

What methods do you use to detect and mitigate model drift over time?

Medium · ml system design and production

Approach

Fix the product goal and the online metric before choosing any model.
Name what you would monitor after launch and what triggers a retrain.
Say where features come from at serving time and how they match training.

Follow-up

How would you detect drift before the metric drops?
How would you roll the new model out safely?

What strategies do you use for monitoring model performance in production?

Medium · ml system design and production

Approach

Fix the product goal and the online metric before choosing any model.
Separate the offline training path from the online serving path.
Name what you would monitor after launch and what triggers a retrain.

Follow-up

How would you roll the new model out safely?
How would you detect drift before the metric drops?

How would you design a real-time scoring system for loan applications?

Medium · system design

Approach

Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.

Follow-up

What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

Design the async export contract a client can resume safely

Hard · async operations · idempotency · leases

A tenant asks for a CSV of every resource. The work runs for minutes on the worker fleet through a job_run row carrying a lease, an attempt count and a dedupe_key, far past the edge's 400 ms budget. Callers are a browser that polls and a script that walks away and checks later. Specify what the submit call returns, the operation resource and its states, how a duplicate submit is handled, how a client learns about completion, what cancellation means given that a lease can expire mid-run, and how the result is fetched and when it expires.

Approach

Split the API in two. Submit returns 202 with an operation id and a location to poll, and never blocks on the work. The operation is a real resource with its own lifecycle - queued, running, succeeded, failed, cancelled - plus attempt, a monotonic progress figure, and a terminal error drawn from the same code taxonomy the synchronous endpoints use, so a client needs one error vocabulary rather than two.
Deduplicate at submit using job_run.dedupe_key, unique over (job_type, dedupe_key) while status is 'queued' or 'running': a repeat submit of the same logical export returns 200 with the existing operation instead of 202 with a new one, and the partial index deliberately permits a legitimate re-run once the first has finished. Pair it with the request's idempotency key so an HTTP-level retry of the submit is exact rather than merely similar.
Tell the poller how to poll: Retry-After on the polling response, a minimum interval enforced at the edge, and a documented maximum lifetime after which an operation is reaped. Polling is the contract of record; the webhook is the fast path, and both must lead to the same terminal state, so a client that receives the completion event and then polls anyway sees no contradiction.
Be exact about cancellation. A cancel request records intent; it cannot stop work already executing. The handler reads the flag at checkpoints, and because a lease expires on a clock that cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, a second copy may start after the cancel was recorded - so the handler re-reads the flag immediately after claiming the lease. 'cancelled' becomes terminal only when no lease is outstanding; reporting it earlier shows a client a stopped job while a worker is still writing output.
Make the handler safe to run twice, because the lease guarantees that it will be. Write output to a deterministic object key derived from the operation id so a second copy overwrites its own work instead of appending a second file, and record completion with a conditional update that only the copy holding the current lease can win.
Treat result fetch as a separate authorised read: a short-lived signed URL, the tenant checked when it is issued rather than only when the file was produced, and a documented retention after which the operation remains terminal but the bytes are gone - a state the client must be able to tell apart from a failure.

Worked solution (40 min)

Write the submit request and its two possible responses, 202 for new and 200 for a duplicate, and the dedupe_key construction.
Draw the operation state machine, marking which transitions a client may observe and which are terminal.
Write the cancellation sequence across a lease expiry, showing where the second copy reads the flag.
Define the output key, the completion update's predicate, and why both are needed for a double run.
Specify result fetch: URL lifetime, authorisation point, retention, and the distinct response once the bytes are gone.

Expected result: A 202-plus-operation contract with deduplicated submits, a documented poll interval alongside an optional completion webhook, cancellation defined as recorded intent with a terminal state gated on lease ownership, an idempotent handler writing to a deterministic key, and a separately authorised expiring result.

Verify it yourself

Submitting the same export twice while the first is running produces one job_run row and one operation id.
Killing a worker mid-export and letting the lease expire yields one output file, not two, and one terminal transition.
A client that receives the completion webhook and then polls sees the same terminal state and the same result location.

Follow-up

An operation has said 'running' for 40 minutes and the worker is gone. What does the client see, and which columns in job_run decide that?
Two tenants each submit 50 exports at once. What in this contract stops one of them delaying the other?
The customer wants the export emailed instead. What changes, and what becomes harder to make exactly-once?

One log partition stops advancing while the others drain

Easy · poison message · head-of-line blocking · consumer lag · projections

Search results for a subset of tenants are hours stale; the rest are current. The projection consumer reports lag of zero on 15 of 16 partitions and 400,000 on one. Its error rate is flat and its CPU is idle. outbox_event has no pending rows older than a second, so the relay has published everything it holds. Identify the mechanism, give the ordered checks, and state what you do in the first ten minutes versus what you change permanently.

Approach

Read the lag distribution first. A slow consumer lags everywhere; zero on fifteen partitions and 400,000 on one is not throughput. Idle CPU on the stuck partition means the consumer is not advancing its offset at all, which points at one message it cannot get past rather than at a rate problem.
Exonerate the producer before touching the consumer. No pending outbox rows older than a second means the relay published, so the event exists in the log. This separates never sent from sent and never applied, which are different code paths and usually different owners.
Read the message at the stuck offset and the handler's log lines for its event_id. A flat error rate with no progress has two explanations and you must distinguish them: the handler is throwing and the retry loop is swallowing it, or the handler is blocking on something and never returning. Idle CPU with no error lines favours the second.
Mitigate before diagnosing further. Move the offending event to a dead-letter store and commit the offset past it. Adding consumers does nothing here, because a partition is consumed by exactly one member of the group, and the blast radius is every aggregate hashed to that partition, not only the aggregate that produced the bad event.
Fix permanently by bounding handler attempts and dead-lettering on exhaustion, so no single message can stop a partition. Then replay the dead-lettered event once the handler is fixed: it carries aggregate_id and aggregate_version, so a consumer that discards versions it has already applied can absorb the replay, and resource_revision is the fallback if the event itself is unusable.

Follow-up

The dead-lettered event carried aggregate_version 7 and the projection had applied 6. What must the replay do differently if 8 and 9 landed in the meantime?
How do you show staleness to the user while the partition is behind, given the API already returns the projection's watermark?
What changes if the message is poison because a previous deploy wrote a payload shape the current code cannot parse?

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.

The estimate and the day you knew

A slipped date is only a bad story if you sat on it. What matters is what you believed when you gave the number, the signal that told you it was wrong, how many days passed before you said so, and what you cut rather than asking for more time. Scope you defended counts as much as scope you dropped.

How do you handle imbalanced datasets in the context of credit risk modeling?

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Describe a challenging project where you had to influence the direction of a team.

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

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

Unblock an engineer without taking the keyboard

Easy · mentoring · leases · at-least-once

A teammate has spent two days on a job handler that occasionally writes duplicate rows. They are certain the queue is delivering twice by mistake. You suspect a lease expiring under a slow handler, so the job is running concurrently with itself. Describe how you have unblocked someone in this position: what you asked before offering a hypothesis, what you showed them rather than told them, and what you left them owning. Then say what you would do if their theory turned out to be the right one.

Approach

Ask before diagnosing, and ask for things answerable from data they already have: the attempt count on the job rows that produced duplicates, the handler's observed duration against its lease expiry, and whether the duplicate rows share a natural key that a unique constraint could have caught.
Teach the shape rather than the answer. A lease cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, so a handler that outruns its lease is running twice by design, and deploys deliver the other half by killing handlers mid-run on every rollout. Both of their candidate theories produce identical duplicate rows, which is why the evidence has to come from timings rather than from argument.
Hand over a checklist they execute: a natural key on every write the handler performs so the second copy collides rather than appends, the record of intent written before any external effect, a lease heartbeat while running, and the metric that shows it working.
Keep ownership with them deliberately. Pair on the first write, then step back; if you finish it yourself you have closed one ticket and left the same person stuck on the next redelivery.
Close on the systemic gap that let two days pass, which is usually a missing dashboard for attempt counts or an undocumented at-least-once contract, and fix that rather than only the bug.

Follow-up

How would you distinguish a genuine double-delivery from a lease expiry using only the data already stored?
Their handler calls an external endpoint before recording that it did. What do you tell them to change first?
What do you do the third time the same person brings you the same class of bug?