Interview guides · CRIF

CRIF Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Causal inference drills for CRIF data scientist prep: diff-in-diff, matching, instruments, and the limits of observed data.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at CRIF, you are at the heart of the "Innovation Drive," the company's dedicated center of excellence. Your work directly influences the global financial ecosystem by designing, developing, and maintaining advanced AI and GenAI systems. You will bridge the gap between complex theoretical modeling and production-grade solutions, impacting how banks, insurance companies, and enterprises manage risk, credit scoring, and customer relationships.

In modelling rounds the live question is usually why this model class for this problem, and how you would know six weeks after launch that it is still working. Deriving gradients by hand is rarely what is being probed.

Focus areas

Analyse at the account grain, cluster errors
Read NRR on a fixed account cohort
Strip CI, retry and synthetic traffic first

Overview

This role is both technically rigorous and strategically significant. You will not only build models but also participate in the end-to-end lifecycle, from experimentation and LLM fine-tuning to deploying scalable MLOps architectures. Whether you are working on RAG systems, vector databases, or traditional predictive models, you will collaborate with cross-functional teams of Data Engineers and Cloud Engineers, ensuring that your data-driven insights translate into tangible business value.

The "Innovation Drive" team values a mix of academic rigor and practical engineering. Expect to be evaluated not just on your ability to select an algorithm, but on your ability to productionize your ideas.

The CRIF interview process

CRIF candidates report 2 rounds · ≈ 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Screening Call

Most candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.

What to demonstrate

Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal

How to prepare

Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered

Technical Evaluation

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

Randomising an experiment at the user level when users share an account

Two problems fire at once. Colleagues in one workspace see each other's work and talk to each other, so a treated user changes the behaviour of a control user in the same account, which violates the no-interference assumption and biases the estimate toward zero. Separately, outcomes within an account are strongly correlated, so the effective sample size is roughly n / (1 + (m - 1) * rho) for m users per account and intra-class correlation rho, not n. With rho around 0.3 and twenty users per account that is a design effect near 6.7, meaning a user-level confidence interval is about two and a half times narrower than it should be and results cross significance thresholds on noise alone. Randomise the account and cluster the standard errors.

Reading consumption metrics before the metering lag window has closed

Usage pipelines land late and correct themselves, which is exactly what is_restated and restated_at record. A dashboard queried on day T sees a partially populated tail for the last several days, so the most recent points always slope downward and always look like a regression. Analysts then explain the artefact, and sometimes ship a change to fix it. Establish the empirical settling time by measuring how much a given usage_date's total moves between first_written_at and its final value, exclude that many trailing days from every reportable figure, and never compare a fresh period against a settled one.

Generalising beyond the population the sample actually supports

State the frame the sample was drawn from and where it diverges from the population you want to talk about: time window, platform, geography, opt-in. If a group is excluded from the frame, either weight to known margins or narrow the claim rather than quietly extending it.

Averaging per-user rates to produce a population rate

Decide which quantity you want: the mean of per-user ratios and the ratio of summed numerator to summed denominator are different estimands, and heavy users dominate one but not the other. For a ratio metric, aggregate numerator and denominator separately and use the delta method for its variance.

Questions & practice

Walk me through a logical reasoning puzzle (e.g., probability or sequence-based).

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than reporting a point estimate alone.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.

Follow-up

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

Can you explain the difference between an embedding model and a standard regression model?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you approach debugging a model that is performing poorly in production?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

What is your process for selecting the right features for a predictive model?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Sessionise an API event stream with a 30-minute inactivity gap

Medium · sessionisation · event-streams · pandas

fct_api_request arrives as a DataFrame with account_id, user_id, request_at (tz-aware UTC), traffic_class and http_status, roughly 5 million rows. Assign a session_id to every human-attributable request: drop rows where user_id is null or traffic_class is in ('ci','synthetic_monitor','load_test'), then open a new session whenever the gap since that user's previous remaining request exceeds 30 minutes. Return the filtered frame plus session_id, and a per-session summary with user_id, account_id, session start, session end and request count. Do not loop over rows.

Approach

Settle the filter-then-gap ordering before writing code. Removing CI and synthetic rows changes the gaps, so sessionising the raw stream and filtering afterwards is a different answer; the definition given filters first, and the two diverge most for accounts whose CI runs every ten minutes.
Sort once by (user_id, request_at) with a stable kind, then gap = df.groupby('user_id', sort=False).request_at.diff(). The first row of each user yields NaT, which is exactly the boundary condition you want rather than a special case to patch.
new_session = gap.isna() | (gap > Timedelta(minutes=30)); session_id = new_session.cumsum(). The cumsum runs over the whole sorted frame and therefore produces globally unique ids in one pass; a per-user cumcount collides across users and forces a composite key on every downstream join.
Build the summary with a single groupby('session_id').agg(...). user_id and account_id can be carried with 'first' only because the sort key groups them — state that dependency, since it silently breaks if someone later re-sorts the frame.
Decide explicitly what a session means when one user_id holds memberships in several accounts: either add account_id to the sort and group keys, or document that sessions may cross accounts. Leaving it undecided produces sessions whose account_id is whichever row sorted first.

Worked solution (30 min)

human = df[df.user_id.notna() & ~df.traffic_class.isin(['ci','synthetic_monitor','load_test'])].sort_values(['user_id','request_at'], kind='mergesort').reset_index(drop=True)
gap = human.groupby('user_id', sort=False).request_at.diff(); human['session_id'] = (gap.isna() | (gap > pd.Timedelta(minutes=30))).cumsum()
summary = human.groupby('session_id').agg(user_id=('user_id','first'), account_id=('account_id','first'), start=('request_at','min'), end=('request_at','max'), n_requests=('request_at','size')).reset_index()
assert summary.n_requests.sum() == len(human) and human.groupby('session_id').user_id.nunique().max() == 1

Expected result: human gains a dense session_id increasing in (user_id, request_at); summary has exactly one row per session, n_requests sums to len(human), and every within-session consecutive gap is at most 30 minutes while every same-user between-session gap exceeds it.

Verify it yourself

summary.n_requests.sum() == len(human); no request is lost or double-counted.
human.groupby('session_id').user_id.nunique().max() == 1.
human.groupby('session_id').request_at.diff().max() <= pd.Timedelta(minutes=30).
Shifting every timestamp by a constant offset leaves the session count unchanged.

Follow-up

Where does 30 minutes come from, and how would you pick it from this data instead of from convention?
An engineer reused their personal key for a nightly batch job, so machine traffic carries a human user_id. How would you detect that, and should those requests form sessions?
How much does the session count change if you sessionise before dropping CI traffic rather than after?

How would you optimize a slow SQL query used for data extraction?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

Collapse retried requests into logical operations per account

Medium · window functions · deduplication · null semantics

fct_api_request carries request_id, account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key (null when the caller supplied none), is_retry, request_at and http_status. For one ISO week, count logical operations rather than HTTP calls: requests sharing (account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key) collapse to the earliest one, while every request with a null idempotency_key is its own operation. Return per account the raw request count, the logical operation count and the ratio between them, and state which direction a rising 5xx rate pushes that ratio.

Approach

Split the stream before deduplicating. GROUP BY and PARTITION BY treat NULLs as equal to one another, while the = operator does not, so a single grouping pass folds every null-key request in an account into one 'operation' and can cut the count by orders of magnitude.
Deduplicate the keyed rows with ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key ORDER BY request_at, request_id) and keep rn = 1. Including request_id in the ORDER BY makes the result deterministic when two rows share a millisecond, which they will.
UNION ALL the null-key rows back in unchanged; they need no dedup and must not pass through the partition.
Aggregate per account: count() over the raw week, count() over the union, and the ratio of the two. Report the ratio, not the difference, so accounts of very different sizes are comparable.
Cross-check against is_retry, which flags a resend of the same idempotency key: raw minus logical should sit close to the count of is_retry rows, and a large gap means clients are resending without a key and the dedup is under-counting duplicates.
Name the inversion explicitly: 5xx responses provoke client retries, so amplification rises exactly when reliability falls, and any engagement metric built on raw request counts will show growth during an outage.

Worked solution (25 min)

Filter to the ISO week with request_at >= :week_start AND request_at < :week_start + interval '7 days', and record the raw count per account as the baseline.
Build keyed_dedup: SELECT ... ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key ORDER BY request_at, request_id) AS rn FROM the week WHERE idempotency_key IS NOT NULL, then keep rn = 1.
Build unkeyed: the same week's rows WHERE idempotency_key IS NULL, taken as-is.
UNION ALL the two, then GROUP BY account_id selecting the logical count; join back to the raw counts and compute raw::numeric / logical.
Validate on one account by comparing raw - logical against COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE is_retry) for that account and explaining any gap.

Expected result: One row per account with raw_requests, logical_operations and an amplification ratio at or above 1.0, where logical_operations counts each distinct (account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key) once and each null-key request once.

Verify it yourself

logical_operations is never greater than raw_requests, and the two are equal for accounts whose keys are all distinct.
For accounts with no null idempotency_key, raw_requests - logical_operations is close to the count of is_retry rows.
Deliberately grouping on the key without the null split reproduces a visibly lower count, confirming the NULL collapse is the mechanism.
Re-running the dedup returns the same surviving request_id set, proving the ORDER BY tiebreak made it deterministic.

Follow-up

Which of these two counts belongs in the billable-units metric, and which in an engagement metric?
An account's amplification ratio jumps from 1.05 to 3.0 in a day. Name three causes and the query that separates them.

Write a function to perform [X] data manipulation task in Python.

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

Set a stopping rule for a daily-read experiment dashboard

Medium · peeking · sequential-testing · multiple-comparisons

An experiment dashboard recomputes a two-sided t-test every morning for 21 days across one primary metric and eleven guardrails. The team ships whenever anything crosses p < 0.05 and stops the test that day. Quantify the false-positive rate this procedure actually carries, from repeated looks and from the twelve metrics separately, then specify the readout protocol you would put in its place: what is checked daily, what is checked at pre-declared points, what controls the family-wise or false-discovery rate, and what the stopping rule is.

Approach

Separate the two inflations, since they compound and have different remedies. Repeated fixed-horizon testing on accumulating data: at roughly 20 equally spaced looks with nominal alpha 0.05, the probability of crossing at least once under the null is about 0.25, and about 0.19 at 10 looks (Armitage, McPherson and Rowe, 1969). Multiplicity: twelve independent metrics at 0.05 give 1 - 0.95^12 = 0.46 of at least one false positive, somewhat lower under correlation but not much lower when metrics share a denominator.
Point out that the stopping rule is worse than either figure alone. Stopping the moment anything crosses is optional stopping on the maximum over twelve metrics and twenty-one days, so the two inflations multiply rather than average, and the realised error rate is above 0.5 for a null effect.
Rebuild around one pre-registered primary metric that alone decides ship or no-ship. Secondary metrics are demoted to hypothesis generation, reported with intervals and no significance marks, and are not permitted to trigger a ship on their own under any circumstances.
For the primary, choose deliberately between two valid options and say what each costs. An alpha-spending boundary with a small number of pre-declared interim analyses, where an O'Brien-Fleming shape spends very little alpha early so the final look retains nearly the full amount; or an always-valid confidence sequence, which permits unlimited looks at the price of a wider interval at every fixed time, typically requiring on the order of 1.2 to 1.5 times the sample to match the fixed-horizon width. Whichever is chosen goes into the power calculation before launch, not after.
Control the guardrail family separately from the primary. Benjamini-Hochberg at q = 0.10 when a missed regression costs more than an occasional false alarm; Holm when any single false positive triggers an expensive rollback. Say which regime you are in rather than reaching for a correction by habit.
Distinguish diagnostics from readouts and write both lists down. Sample ratio mismatch, exposure counts, error rates and pipeline health are checked every single day and are not peeking, because their only permitted action is to abort the test, never to declare a win. The abort conditions belong next to the stopping rule in the same document.

Worked solution (25 min)

Record the repeated-testing inflation for 21 daily looks against the nominal 0.05, about 0.25 at 20 looks, either from published tables or by simulating a random walk under the null.
Compute the independence bound 1 - 0.95^12 = 0.46, then re-estimate by simulation using the observed correlation matrix of the twelve metrics.
Pick the sequential method and size the test for it, adding the confidence-sequence width penalty to the power calculation or placing two interim looks under an O'Brien-Fleming boundary.
Write the one-page protocol: primary metric, stopping rule, interim dates, guardrail family and its FDR level, abort conditions, and the list of daily diagnostics that explicitly cannot trigger a ship.

Expected result: About 0.25 type-I error from twenty daily looks and about 0.46 from twelve independent metrics, compounding under a stop-on-first-crossing rule to more than half. Replaced by one primary metric under a pre-declared sequential boundary or confidence sequence, guardrails under Benjamini-Hochberg at q = 0.10, and daily diagnostics whose only permitted action is to abort.

Verify it yourself

1 - 0.95^12 = 0.4596 exactly under independence. A simulation using the real correlation matrix must come out below that; if it comes out above, the simulation is wrong.
A valid sequential boundary is at least as wide as the fixed-horizon boundary at every look, including the final one. A boundary that is ever narrower is not controlling anything.
A sample ratio mismatch check run daily needs no multiplicity correction, because its action is to stop and fix rather than to claim an effect.

Follow-up

Your confidence sequence never crosses in 21 days, but the point estimate is exactly the size you powered for. What do you tell the team, and what do you do next?
The eleven guardrails are heavily correlated with each other. Does that make Benjamini-Hochberg conservative or anti-conservative here, and does it change your q?
Someone asks for a directional read on day five. What can you honestly give them without compromising the stopping rule?

Error rate halves while severe support tickets double

Hard · missing data · aggregation bias · reconciliation

The fleet-wide customer-visible error rate fell from 1.8 percent to 0.9 percent, while sev1 and sev2 tickets and reopened_count rose across the same fortnight. Using fct_api_request (account_id, environment, sdk_name, traffic_class, http_status, request_at, billable_units), fct_usage_daily (account_id, sku_code, usage_date, billable_quantity) and fct_support_ticket (account_id, severity, opened_at, reopened_count, linked_incident_id), determine whether reliability improved, and if not, identify precisely which rows are missing and from when. Deliverable: a diagnosis backed by an independent corroborating source.

Approach

Distrust an improvement that contradicts an independent operational signal. Two sources disagreeing is itself the finding; decide which one is more likely to be broken before explaining either.
Recompute the rate as the metric tree defines it, per account first and then as the share of accounts above the reliability target. A single global average is dominated by whichever account sends the most traffic, so a fleet number can fall while a quarter of accounts get worse.
Audit for missingness rather than for badness: count fct_api_request rows per hour split by environment, sdk_name and status class, indexed against the trailing same-hour baseline. A partial ingestion failure shows as a step drop confined to one slice, not a uniform decline.
Reconcile against a source the request pipeline does not feed, such as implied request volume from fct_usage_daily for the same accounts and dates. If the usage table is flat while request rows fell, rows are missing rather than traffic.
Test whether the missingness is differential by status, which is the mechanism that fakes an improvement: if 5xx rows are written on a path that stopped while 2xx rows were unaffected, the numerator falls faster than the denominator and the rate drops with nothing improving.
Close with the affected window, the affected slice and a restated series marked unreliable across that window, rather than a silently patched number.

Follow-up

The missing rows are unrecoverable. How do you present that fortnight in a series people compare week over week?
What monitor would have caught this within an hour, and what is its false-positive cost on a normal quiet weekend?

Suggested practice checklist

Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.

Deliverable: A five-item sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area

Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted improvement in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed next to the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

Bring numbers, including the ones you are unsure of

An answer without a quantity is hard to interrogate, so interviewers keep probing until they find one. Come with the baseline, the change, the window it was measured over, and how confident you were. If the effect never got measured, say so and say what you would have measured. Fabricated precision is worse than an honest gap.

How do you manage high workloads and conflicting priorities within a team?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

How do you handle imbalanced datasets in a classification problem?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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

Allocate one analyst week across three competing requests

Easy · prioritisation · stakeholders · scoping

Three requests arrive the same morning and you have one week. Finance wants per-account gross margin from fct_usage_daily for a pricing review in three weeks. Sales wants a renewal-risk list for accounts with term_end_date inside 60 days. A product manager wants an experiment readout for a decision being taken on Thursday. Produce your allocation with hours attached, what you say to whoever receives less, and one thing you refuse to do this week, with the reason each decision is defensible to the person it costs.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you prioritise on decision timing and reversibility or on who asked most forcefully. Sort by the date each decision is actually taken and by what the default outcome is if nothing arrives.
Apply that sort concretely. The Thursday readout has a hard irreversible deadline and no value afterwards. The pricing review has three weeks of slack. The renewal list has a rolling deadline set by term_end_date, so part of it is urgent this week and the rest is not, which means it can be split rather than deferred whole.
Find the cheapest sufficient version of each request rather than the full version. The readout goes in full. The renewal list ships as a filtered query over renewal-eligible accounts ranked by two inspectable signals rather than as a model. The margin work is scoped to the accounts that dominate the pricing decision, since revenue is heavily skewed and the tail will not change the conclusion.
Make the trade visible in one written note to all three at once, with dates. Telling each person separately that they are the priority is how an allocation becomes a credibility problem.
Refuse something explicitly and say why. The model version of the renewal list is the usual candidate, because it cannot be evaluated without a holdout nobody has agreed to yet, and building it this week forecloses that.
Leave slack. A plan with none is a plan to miss the one deadline that cannot move.

Follow-up

The sales leader escalates to your manager. What did you already do that makes that a short conversation?
Which of the three deadlines would you push back on, and what exactly would you ask for?
What would you change about how these requests reach you so next week is not the same?