Interview guides · Cushman & Wakefield

Cushman & Wakefield Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Diagnose a metric move for Cushman & Wakefield data scientist prep: split by segment, rule out a logging change, separate mix shift from behaviour.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Cushman & Wakefield, you are at the intersection of global real estate strategy and cutting-edge analytical modeling. You will work within one of the world’s largest commercial real estate services firms, where your ability to synthesize vast datasets into actionable insights directly influences multi-million dollar investment decisions, portfolio optimizations, and workplace strategy.

Nearly every loop contains a round whose deliverable is a recommendation to someone non-technical. Practise stating a conclusion, the confidence attached to it, and the cost of being wrong in each direction, because that triple is the artifact being graded.

Focus areas

Define numerator, denominator and window precisely
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix
Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change

Overview

The role is critical because Cushman & Wakefield manages complex, high-stakes environments—from corporate office footprints to industrial logistics centers. You will be expected to build predictive models, automate reporting pipelines, and leverage machine learning to help clients navigate market volatility and operational efficiency. It is a position of significant influence, requiring you to bridge the gap between technical rigor and business-focused storytelling.

Total packages for this role within the Cushman & Wakefield organization may vary based on location and specific team requirements. During negotiation discussions, focus on the value your analytical skills bring to the firm’s bottom line.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

Watching an experiment daily and stopping when it crosses significance

A fixed-sample test controls type I error at one pre-declared look. Checking repeatedly and stopping at the first p < 0.05 inflates the false positive rate to roughly 0.15 to 0.20 for ten looks, and it rises further with more frequent checks, because the p-value takes a random walk that will eventually dip below the threshold under the null. The usual defences are a fixed horizon declared before launch, group-sequential boundaries such as O'Brien-Fleming that spend alpha across a planned number of looks, or always-valid confidence sequences that are correct under continuous monitoring. Compounding it, the effect size reported conditional on having crossed the threshold is biased away from zero, and the bias is larger the lower the power was, so an underpowered test that 'won' typically overstates the lift it found.

Counting on an identity key that changes underneath the metric

visitor_id is per browser and per device, and it resets on cookie clearance, private browsing and platform privacy changes, so the distinct-visitor count drifts upward for reasons unrelated to reach. Any rate with visitors in the denominator therefore decays over time even when behaviour is constant, and any rate with visitors in the numerator inflates. The stitching at signup makes it worse in both directions: a user who signed up on mobile and returns on desktop is two visitors and one user, while a shared device is one visitor and several users. Decide which key each metric is counted on, write it into the definition, and when comparing a period before and after a platform privacy change, expect a level shift in every visitor-keyed metric and do not attribute it to the product.

Naming a model class before naming the deployment constraints

Set out the latency budget, the label delay, the retraining cadence, the interpretability requirement and the number of labelled examples, then pick the model that fits them. A boosted-tree answer to a problem where each decision must be explained to the affected user is a well-executed answer to the wrong question.

Extrapolating a first-week lift inflated by novelty effects

Plot the treatment effect by days since first exposure instead of quoting one pooled average. A lift that decays toward zero across the test window is behaviour that will not persist, and annualising it produces a forecast that misses by an order of magnitude.

Questions & practice

Explain the difference between bagging and boosting, and provide an example of when you would use each.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.

Follow-up

What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?

How would you design a model to predict vacancy rates for a portfolio of commercial properties?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

How do you prioritize which features to include in a model when faced with a high-dimensional dataset?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
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 are the assumptions of linear regression, and how do you validate them?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Simulate the false positive cost of repeated peeking

Medium · simulation · peeking · type i error

Quantify the cost of peeking. Simulate a two-arm experiment with no true effect: each arm accumulates Bernoulli conversions at a base rate of 0.10 up to 40,000 units per arm. Run a two-sided two-proportion z-test at alpha 0.05 at ten equally spaced interim points, and record whether the test ever crossed. Report the false positive rate over at least 10,000 replications, alongside the rate for a single look at the final sample only. Use a fixed seed and report a Monte Carlo standard error on both figures.

Approach

Generate each replication as two cumulative sums of Bernoulli draws, then read the interim points off the cumulative arrays. Regenerating data at each look would make the looks independent, which destroys exactly the dependence the exercise is about: later looks share data with earlier ones.
Use the pooled-variance two-proportion z: p_pool = (x1+x2)/(n1+n2), z = (p1-p2) / sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)), reject when |z| > 1.96. State that the normal approximation is fine here because the smallest look has roughly 400 expected conversions per arm.
Vectorise across replications rather than looping: draw a (reps, n) array of uniforms, threshold at 0.10, cumsum along axis 1 and slice the ten look indices. A per-replication loop at 10,000 by 40,000 is unnecessarily slow.
Record the any-cross indicator per replication, take the mean, and compute the Monte Carlo standard error as sqrt(p*(1-p)/reps) so the reported figure comes with its own precision.
Report the single-look rate in the same run as a control. If it does not land near 0.05, the bug is in the test statistic and not in the peeking argument.

Worked solution (30 min)

rng = np.random.default_rng(seed); for memory, batch the replications in chunks and accumulate the any-cross count across chunks.
Per chunk: draw (chunk, 40000) uniforms per arm, x = (u < 0.10).cumsum(axis=1), slice columns at indices 3999, 7999, ..., 39999.
Compute the ten z statistics vectorised over the chunk, take crossed = (np.abs(z) > 1.96).any(axis=1).
Aggregate: peek_rate = total_crossed / reps; single_rate = mean of |z_final| > 1.96; mc_se = sqrt(p*(1-p)/reps) for each.

Expected result: The single-look rate lands at 0.05 within about 0.005 at 10,000 replications. The ten-look rate lands near 0.19, which with 10,000 replications has a Monte Carlo standard error of about 0.004, so anything in roughly 0.18 to 0.20 is consistent and anything near 0.40 indicates independent redraws.

Verify it yourself

The single-look control recovers 0.05 within two Monte Carlo standard errors; if it does not, the z statistic is wrong and the headline number is meaningless.
The crossing rate is monotone in the number of looks: 1 look near 0.05, 2 near 0.08, 5 near 0.14, 10 near 0.19.
Halving the base rate to 0.05 leaves the peeking rate essentially unchanged, since the result is about the test's random walk and not about the conversion level.
Re-running with the same seed reproduces the figure exactly.

Follow-up

Re-run with 40 looks instead of 10. Why does the curve flatten rather than continue rising linearly?
Among the replications that crossed, what is the mean observed lift, and why is it not zero?
What does an O'Brien-Fleming boundary or an always-valid confidence sequence change about this simulation, and what does each cost in power?

Seven-day activation rate by weekly signup cohort

Easy · cohorts · activation · date-bounds

dim_user holds user_id, account_created_at_utc, is_internal. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action. A user is activated when core-action events fall on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Return, for the last twelve complete weekly signup cohorts, the cohort week, cohort size, activated users and the activation rate. Exclude is_internal users. Every signup in the cohort week stays in the denominator, including users who never returned.

Approach

Start from dim_user as the denominator spine with is_internal = FALSE and DATE_TRUNC('week', account_created_at_utc) as the cohort key. Driving the query from the event table instead would silently condition on having events and delete the entire non-activating population.
Join fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and a per-user bound, occurred_at_utc >= u.account_created_at_utc AND occurred_at_utc < u.account_created_at_utc + interval '7 days'. The bound is correlated to each user's own signup timestamp, not a single global date range.
Aggregate per user with COUNT(DISTINCT occurred_at_utc::date) >= 2, then LEFT JOIN that back onto the spine and COALESCE the flag to FALSE so non-activators contribute a zero rather than vanishing.
Restrict the published cohorts to those whose week ended at least eight days ago. A cohort younger than that has not finished its seven-day window, so its rate is mechanically low and reads as a decline.
Roll up by summing the numerator and denominator per cohort week, and state the two-distinct-days threshold next to the number since it is a choice that re-bases the whole history if changed.

Follow-up

Why two distinct days rather than one event? What happens to the published history if someone changes it to three?
Invited seats and SSO-provisioned users get an account_created_at_utc at provisioning and may never sign in. Should they be in this denominator?
The rate rose 3 points this week. What do you check before believing it?

Weekly visit-to-signup conversion split by acquisition channel

Easy · funnel · conversion · aggregation

From fct_session (session_id, visitor_id, started_at_utc, referrer_channel, is_bot_flagged, consent_state) and fct_event (visitor_id, occurred_at_utc, event_name), compute visit-to-signup conversion for one ISO week, split by channel. session_id is the unique key of fct_session. Denominator: distinct visitor_id with a session starting in the week, is_bot_flagged = FALSE and consent_state <> 'denied'. Numerator: those visitors with a 'signup_completed' event in the same week. Label each visitor with the referrer_channel of their first session in the window. Return channel, visitors, signups and rate, plus one all-channel total row.

Approach

Build a visitor spine that is one row per visitor: filter sessions to the week, drop is_bot_flagged and consent_state = 'denied', then take the first session per visitor with ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY started_at_utc, session_id) = 1 to carry the channel label. Collapsing to one row here is what makes the channel buckets mutually exclusive and the totals additive.
session_id is the unique key, so that ordering is total and the label is reproducible. If the table carried no unique key you would have to write an explicit tie rule instead, because two sessions on different channels at the identical timestamp would otherwise label the visitor differently between runs.
Attach the outcome as a semi-join (EXISTS on a signup_completed event for that visitor inside the same week) rather than a join to the event table, so a visitor who fires the event twice does not count twice and inflate the numerator past the denominator.
Aggregate with COUNT() as visitors and COUNT() FILTER (WHERE signed_up) as signups, and compute the rate as signups::numeric / NULLIF(visitors, 0) so an empty channel returns NULL rather than a division error.
Produce the total with GROUP BY GROUPING SETS ((channel), ()), which re-sums numerator and denominator for the total row. Averaging the channel rates gives a different and wrong number whenever channel volumes differ, which they always do.
Verify the spine before trusting the output: COUNT(*) must equal COUNT(DISTINCT visitor_id), and the per-channel visitor counts must sum to the total row.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the filtered session CTE and check its row count against an unfiltered count, so you know how much volume the bot and consent filters removed.
Add the ROW_NUMBER first-session pick and assert one row per visitor.
Add the EXISTS outcome flag and aggregate with FILTER.
Add GROUPING SETS for the total and format the rate to four decimal places.
Spot-check one channel by hand: pull its visitor list, count signups directly, compare.

Expected result: One row per referrer_channel plus a total row, with visitors, signups and a decimal rate. Channels with zero signups appear with rate 0, not missing. The total rate lies strictly between the minimum and maximum channel rate unless one channel holds all the volume.

Verify it yourself

Per-channel visitor counts sum exactly to the total row's visitor count.
COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT visitor_id) on the spine CTE.
Replacing the EXISTS with a plain inner join changes the signup count only if duplicate signup_completed events exist; if it does change, say by how much.
Every rate is between 0 and 1.
Re-running the first-session pick with session_id removed from the ORDER BY returns the same labels; if it does not, visitors hold same-timestamp sessions on different channels and the tie rule is doing real work.

Follow-up

The denominator is distinct visitors. If a browser release shortens cookie lifetime, what happens to this rate, and how would you tell that apart from a genuine drop?
A visitor's first session is direct and their signup session is paid search. Your label says direct. When is that the wrong answer for the decision being made?
How do you roll four weeks into a month, and why is averaging the four weekly rates wrong?

Reminder volume where the guardrail opposes the primary metric

Medium · engagement · guardrails · trade-offs

The growth team proposes tripling weekly reminder email volume. The north star is weekly active accounts completing a core action, counted on account_id from fct_event (is_core_action, account_id, occurred_at_utc, surface). Its stated guardrail is week-over-week repeat rate together with notification opt-out and unsubscribe rates. Reminders will move the primary up and the guardrail down, by design, and both effects are real. Define the decision rule before the test runs: what magnitudes make this a ship and what makes it a stop. Deliverable: the rule, including the exchange rate you are using between the two quantities.

Approach

Name the conflict precisely rather than calling it a balance: the reminder buys one week of an account returning and spends permission to contact that account, and permission is not renewable, so the two quantities are not comparable as percentage points.
Put both sides into one unit before arguing about thresholds. Value the primary gain as incremental core-action weeks over the horizon; value an opt-out as the forgone email-driven active weeks over that account's remaining expected lifetime.
Read opt-out as a stock, not a flow: accumulate it over the test, because a weekly opt-out rate that looks small is a cumulative curve that only ever rises within a fixed set of contactable accounts.
Run long enough for the novelty to decay and use the late number in the trade: compare week-1 lift with week-4 lift, state the decay you observed, and refuse to price the decision on a week-1 read.
Write the outcome as two numbers and a default action, including what happens when the result lands between them — hold and test a smaller volume increment rather than shipping on ambiguity.

Follow-up

Opt-out is flat but week-over-week repeat rate falls. What is the most likely mechanism, and does it change the decision?
You do not have a year of data to estimate remaining account lifetime. What do you substitute, and how do you keep the answer honest about that?
Does randomising on account rather than on user change either the readout or the size of the test?

Metric tree for a seat-expansion push on seat-based plans

Medium · revenue · seats · leading indicators

Sales wants a push to add seats to existing accounts. Tables: dim_account (account_id, seats_licensed, seats_assigned, lifecycle_status, current_plan_tier), fct_subscription_period (subscription_id, account_id, mrr_cents_constant_fx, seats_billed, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, change_reason), and fct_event (is_core_action, user_id, account_id, occurred_at_utc). Build the metric tree from net revenue retention down to the metric the push team is graded on, name the primary, and give the guardrail that fires before the damage shows up in NRR. Deliverable: the tree, the primary metric, and the lead-time argument for the guardrail.

Approach

Grade the team at the grain it controls. NRR is a trailing twelve-month revenue-weighted ratio that the push cannot move inside a quarter and that also moves for reasons the push does not touch, so it belongs at the top of the tree and nowhere near the target.
Define the primary as a delta rather than a count: the sum of period-over-period mrr_cents_constant_fx changes on rows with change_reason = 'seat_change' and a positive seats_billed delta. A COUNT of seat_change rows rewards churn of seats as much as growth.
Name the failure the target creates: seats sold and never assigned book revenue now and reappear as a seat reduction at the next renewal, six to twelve months later, comfortably outside the window the team is measured in.
Pick licensed-seat utilisation as the guardrail precisely because of that lag — distinct user_id with an is_core_action event in the trailing 28 days over seats_licensed, MRR-weighted across lifecycle_status = 'active' accounts — and read it against each account's renewal date rather than the calendar.
Close the horizon gap with a rule instead of a hope: the push books expansion MRR immediately but retains credit only for accounts still above the utilisation threshold at the following renewal.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build the tree downward: NRR at twelve months, then expansion plus contraction plus churned MRR, then seat_change deltas and tier changes, then seats billed per account, then licensed-seat utilisation.
Write the primary as a period-over-period MRR delta restricted to positive seat changes, in constant FX, on subscription_id.
Write the guardrail with its weighting and its read points: 30 and 60 days before each account's renewal date.
State the lead time in months: utilisation moves within one 28-day window of a seat sale, while the seat reduction it predicts reaches NRR only at the next renewal.
Write the credit rule that ties the two horizons together.

Expected result: A tree with expansion MRR as the primary, utilisation as the guardrail with its lead time stated in months, and a credit rule that makes the push team carry the renewal-horizon consequence.

Verify it yourself

Summing mrr_cents_constant_fx across all period rows in a month double-counts any account with a mid-period change; the monthly figure must be built from period boundaries rather than a naive SUM over rows.
seats_assigned can exceed seats_licensed during a grace period, so a utilisation computed on assigned seats can exceed 1. The denominator is seats_licensed.
The MRR-weighted and unweighted utilisation means should differ substantially. If they do not, single-seat accounts are probably being dropped somewhere in the aggregation.

Follow-up

How do you separate seat expansion from price and tier expansion inside NRR without double-counting either?
An account buys 40 seats and assigns 6 during a phased rollout. Is that expansion, and what would change your answer?
What does the utilisation threshold do to a genuinely growing customer three weeks into a rollout?

Decide whether a one-day core-action drop is real

Easy · seasonality · day-of-week · late-arriving-data

A daily dashboard counts distinct fct_event.user_id with is_core_action = TRUE, filtered on occurred_at_utc, and is read at 09:00 UTC. This morning it shows yesterday down 22% against the day before. fct_event is partitioned on received_at_utc. You have fct_event, fct_session and dim_user with thirteen months of history. Deliver a one-paragraph verdict, escalate or do not escalate, with the evidence that settles it, before anyone proposes a product hypothesis.

Approach

Identify which two weekdays the comparison actually spans, then pull the same weekday-pair transition for the last 52 weeks and place the observed 22% inside that distribution. A day-over-day comparison in a product with a weekday pattern is a comparison of two different populations, so the reference class is the same transition historically, not the prior day.
Measure partition completeness rather than assuming it. For each of the last 30 days compute the share of that day's occurred_at_utc rows that had landed by 09:00 UTC the following morning, split by surface; mobile clients buffer events offline, so the freshest partition is systematically short and the shortfall is not uniform across surfaces.
Recompute the same series keyed on received_at_utc. If the drop survives on both keys it is not a lateness artefact; if it exists only on occurred_at_utc it is the partition filling in.
Check the two exclusion flags before segmenting anything: a change in is_bot_flagged coverage or a batch of is_internal accounts entering or leaving moves a distinct-user count with no user behaviour behind it.
Only if the movement survives all of the above, begin the segment decomposition. Say explicitly in the verdict which of these four checks the movement passed, so the next reader does not repeat them.

Follow-up

What publication lag would you set for this dashboard, and how would you derive the number rather than pick it?
If you switch the metric to received_at_utc, what does that break for anyone comparing to historical figures?
How would you detect the same problem automatically, so a human does not have to notice it each morning?

Suggested practice checklist

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

Day 1 — Breadth pass: query fluency

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

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

Day 2 — Breadth pass: statistics and inference

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

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

Day 3 — Breadth pass: modelling

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

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

Day 4 — Breadth pass: product judgement

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

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

Day 5 — Depth, first area

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

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

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

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

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

Day 7 — Integration and re-measurement

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

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

The project you argued against

Saying no well is a senior skill and it is rarely rehearsed. Think of a time you told someone their analysis was not worth doing, or that the experiment could not answer their question at the sample size available. Explain what you offered instead. Refusal without an alternative reads as obstruction rather than judgement.

Can you describe a time you had to explain a complex statistical model to a non-technical stakeholder?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

How do you handle missing or corrupted data in a large dataset?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

What did you decide not to do, and why?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Disagree with a product manager's roadmap claim using data

Medium · causal inference · selection bias · stakeholder

A product manager proposes building a feature on the argument that accounts connecting an integration in week one retain three times better at week four. The figure is correctly computed from dim_user and fct_event, and it has already been shown to leadership. You have one scheduled 1:1 before the roadmap locks. Deliver the specific analysis you would run to test whether the relationship is causal, the result that would change your own mind, and how you open the conversation so that the PM is not put in the position of defending the number in public.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can separate a number being right from an inference being wrong, and do it without costing the PM face. The generic answer recites that correlation is not causation; the strong one names the specific confound and proposes the cheapest design that could distinguish the explanations.
State the alternative concretely. Accounts that connect an integration in week one are accounts that already have a workflow and a technical owner, so week-one intent plausibly drives both the connection and week-four retention. The selection is on intent, which no amount of post-hoc adjustment observes.
Order the discriminating analyses by cost. First, condition on pre-connection activity by comparing retention within strata of week-one core-action count, which removes the crude version of the confound but not unobserved intent. Second, look for variation in integration availability that was unrelated to intent, such as a staggered release or an outage window. Third, an encouragement design that randomises a prompt to connect and reads the intent-to-treat effect on week-four retention, which is the only version that identifies an effect.
Run the timing check, because it is nearly free and it is the most persuasive single piece of evidence. If the retention advantage among connectors is already visible before any of them connected, the causal story is largely finished.
Pre-commit to what would change your mind and say it before you show anything: if the gap survives stratification and the encouragement arm moves week-four retention at all, the feature has a case and you will say so.
Open the 1:1 by agreeing with the true part, that the correlation is real and worth chasing, then ask what effect size the roadmap plan assumes. That makes the size of the claim the topic instead of its authorship.

Follow-up

The encouragement test needs six weeks and the roadmap locks in two. What do you recommend in the interim?
Stratifying on week-one activity closes half the gap. What do you conclude, and what do you still not know?
How would you word this in the roadmap document so the PM's original number is reframed rather than deleted?