Interview guides · Daikin

Daikin Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

A two-week prep plan for Daikin data scientist candidates: write your answer before reading the solution, revisit misses three days later.

The 60-second brief

At Daikin, the Data Scientist is a strategic bridge between complex data ecosystems and actionable business intelligence. You are not just crunching numbers; you are a catalyst for digital transformation, tasked with breaking down "hairiest" business problems to influence hearts and minds across the organization. Whether you are working on predictive modeling for marketing campaigns or optimizing supply chain efficiency, your work directly informs how Daikin maintains its competitive edge in the global HVAC industry.

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

Measure churn only on renewal-eligible accounts
Read NRR on a fixed account cohort
Analyse at the account grain, cluster errors

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of technical rigor and business acumen. You will be expected to translate raw, often messy, structured and unstructured data into insights that improve the customer experience and drive long-term value. Because Daikin is a global leader, you will be part of an environment that values data-driven decision-making and continuous improvement. You will have the opportunity to influence how the company talks about and values its data assets, making this a pioneering role for those who thrive on autonomy and impact.

The role is highly cross-functional. Be prepared to discuss how you communicate technical findings to non-technical stakeholders, as this is a core expectation for any Data Scientist at Daikin.

The Daikin interview process

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

Video Assessment

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

Technical Discussions

Much of what gets scored here happens out loud while you type. Nobody can see your reasoning inside a half-written query, so five silent minutes read as being stuck even when they are not. State the plan in plain language first: which tables, what grain you are aggregating to, and the one filter that defines the population. Then write it. The narration doubles as insurance, because a wrong plan gets caught early and cheaply while a wrong query gets caught at the end with no time left to redo it. A timed statistics section, where one exists, is a separate test with its own clock.

What to demonstrate

Whether the query you write matches the plan you just described
What you do with a hint, meaning whether the correction gets absorbed or the first approach gets defended
Whether you can debug your own wrong output by reading the result set and naming which part of the query produced the anomaly

How to prepare

Solve three problems while screen-sharing into a recording, then watch it back and mark every stretch longer than thirty seconds where you said nothing
Practise compressing the plan into one sentence before typing, then check afterwards whether the finished query actually matched it
Time yourself on statistics questions that carry a business reading, such as what a confidence interval does and does not claim, rather than re-reading notes without a clock

Behavioral Discussions

Rounds of this kind usually include one question about work that did not go well, and it is the part that carries the most information. Anyone can narrate a shipped win. What the interviewer learns from a project that stalled is how you behave without a result to hide behind: whether you noticed the problem yourself, how long it took, and who you told. Answers that route the failure onto a data pipeline or a reorganisation close the topic without answering it, and the follow-up comes back to your own part.

What to demonstrate

Whether you found the error yourself or someone else found it, and how long it sat before anyone knew
What you changed afterwards, stated as a check you now run rather than a lesson you now believe
Whether the mistake you choose has real cost attached, such as a quarter of misdirected roadmap or a metric that was reported upward, instead of one that flatters you

How to prepare

Choose a failure you caught yourself and be ready to say what tipped you off. A story where someone else caught it is still usable, but you will be asked why you missed it.
Write down the check you added afterwards and where it lives now, so the correction is a concrete artefact rather than a resolution.
Rehearse saying the cost out loud. Candidates shrink the number by instinct once the interviewer is in the room.

Where candidates lose points

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.

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.

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.

Writing SQL without stating NULL and tie-breaking behaviour

Before calling a query finished, say what it does with NULLs, ties and empty groups. NOT IN against a subquery containing a single NULL returns no rows at all, and RANK, DENSE_RANK and ROW_NUMBER differ precisely on ties, so name which one the question requires.

Questions & practice

How do you validate that your predictive model is ready for deployment?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
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

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

Bootstrap a confidence interval for net revenue retention

Medium · bootstrap · retention · resampling

You have one row per account with arr_start_cents (ARR twelve months ago) and arr_end_cents (ARR today, zero if churned), covering the fixed cohort of accounts that had ARR twelve months ago. Net revenue retention is sum(arr_end_cents) / sum(arr_start_cents). Write a nonparametric bootstrap from scratch, without scipy.stats.bootstrap: resample accounts with replacement, recompute the ratio of sums on each resample, and return the point estimate with a 95% percentile interval from 10,000 resamples. Also report the interval you would get from the mean of per-account ratios, and explain the difference.

Approach

Resample the account, because the account is the unit the estimand is defined over. One bootstrap draw is a vector of account indices and both numerator and denominator are recomputed from that same draw; resampling the two sides independently destroys the within-account correlation that makes a ratio estimator stable.
Vectorise the draws: idx = rng.integers(0, n, size=(B, n)), then end[idx].sum(axis=1) / start[idx].sum(axis=1). A 10,000 by n index matrix is usually far cheaper than a Python loop; if the matrix is too large for memory, chunk over B rather than reverting to a loop.
Take the interval from np.quantile(ratios, [0.025, 0.975]). The percentile interval differs from estimate +/- 1.96 * bootstrap SE whenever the resample distribution is skewed, which it will be here, and the skew is the thing you want represented.
Compute the mean-of-ratios version on the same resamples, and state the exact relationship rather than guessing which of the two is larger. With r_i = arr_end_i / arr_start_i, the ratio of sums is the arr_start-weighted mean of exactly those r_i, so sum(end)/sum(start) - mean(r) = Cov(arr_start, r) / mean(arr_start) using the population covariance. The gap is positive when larger accounts retain and expand better than smaller ones, and negative when they do not; a cohort whose small accounts churn at a higher rate has positive covariance, which puts the mean of per-account ratios BELOW the ratio of sums. Requires arr_start_i > 0 for every account, which the fixed-cohort definition guarantees; r_i is floored at 0 and unbounded above, so a handful of 4x expansions among small accounts can flip the sign. Compute the covariance and report it instead of asserting a direction.
Report the interval width beside the concentration of the cohort. If the largest account is 12% of starting ARR, a narrow interval is evidence that the resampling unit is wrong rather than evidence that the estimate is precise.

Worked solution (30 min)

start = df.arr_start_cents.to_numpy(float); end = df.arr_end_cents.to_numpy(float); n = len(start); point = end.sum() / start.sum()
rng = np.random.default_rng(7); idx = rng.integers(0, n, size=(10_000, n)); ratios = end[idx].sum(1) / start[idx].sum(1)
lo, hi = np.quantile(ratios, [0.025, 0.975]); return point, lo, hi
per_acct = end / start; mean_point = per_acct.mean(); mean_boot = per_acct[idx].mean(1); compare np.quantile(mean_boot, [0.025, 0.975]) against (lo, hi), and report np.cov(start, per_acct, ddof=0)[0,1] / start.mean() as the quantity that accounts for the gap between the two centres.

Expected result: A point estimate equal to sum(end)/sum(start) on the unresampled data — the bootstrap mean is close but must not be substituted for it — and a percentile interval that is asymmetric around the point when expansion is skewed. The mean-of-ratios interval is centred on a different estimand, and which side it falls on is decided by Cov(arr_start, r): it sits below the ratio of sums in the common case where small accounts churn at a higher rate than large ones, and above it when the large accounts are the ones shrinking. Its width is governed by the spread of per-account growth, while the ratio-of-sums width is governed by how concentrated starting ARR is, so neither interval is reliably the wider one.

Verify it yourself

point equals sum(end)/sum(start) computed directly on the original arrays, and point - per_acct.mean() equals np.cov(start, per_acct, ddof=0)[0,1] / start.mean() to floating-point tolerance. That is an algebraic identity, not an empirical claim: a mismatch means the per-account ratios or the weights are wrong, and the sign of it tells you which of the two numbers is larger before you look.
np.median(ratios) sits within a small fraction of a point of the point estimate; a large gap indicates a wrong resampling unit or a transposed index matrix.
Raising B from 10,000 to 20,000 moves the endpoints by far less than the interval width.
Setting every arr_end equal to its arr_start gives point == 1.0, per_acct.mean() == 1.0, a zero covariance term and a zero-width interval.

Follow-up

The cohort has 800 accounts and the largest is 12% of starting ARR. How much do you trust a percentile interval here?
How would you extend this to an interval on the year-over-year change in NRR?
Two accounts merged mid-window and one contract was co-termed into the other. How do you keep the cohort fixed?

Permutation-test a consumption experiment randomised at account level

Hard · permutation-test · heavy-tails · cuped · experiment-readout

An experiment randomised 900 accounts into two arms. You have one row per account: account_id, arm, consumption_28d (billable units after launch) and consumption_pre (the 28 days before). Consumption is heavy-tailed and the largest account is several percent of the total. Write a permutation test from scratch: winsorise at the pooled 99th percentile as a pre-registered rule, use the difference in arm means of the winsorised outcome as the statistic, and obtain a two-sided p-value from 20,000 relabellings of the account-level arm vector. Report the observed effect, the p-value, and the same test on a CUPED-adjusted outcome.

Approach

Be precise about what the permutation test needs. Under the sharp null of no effect for any account, the outcomes are exchangeable across arm labels, and the test is valid for ANY statistic T(outcomes, labels) provided the identical function is applied to the observed labels and to all 20,000 relabellings. The pooled 99th percentile is a function of the outcome vector alone, so recomputing it inside the loop returns the same number 20,000 times: that is wasted CPU, not a bias, and hoisting it out is an optimisation rather than a correctness fix. Say plainly that capping at all changes the estimand from mean consumption to mean capped consumption; it is not a neutral cleaning step.
The mistake that does invalidate the test is an asymmetry between the observed statistic and the permuted ones, and the easiest way to create it is to derive the cleaning rule from the observed arm labels and then freeze it — winsorise each arm at its own observed 99th percentile, hold those two caps fixed, and permute. The observed value is then computed with caps matched to its own partition while every relabelling is scored with caps belonging to a different one, so the null distribution no longer answers the question the p-value claims to answer. A per-arm cap recomputed consistently inside every permutation is a valid test, but it estimates a contrast whose two sides are capped at different thresholds, so prefer the pooled cap on estimand grounds and pre-register it.
Permute the account-level arm vector, because the account is the randomisation unit. Relabelling anything finer — users, workspaces, requests — generates a null distribution narrower than the design actually supports and returns p-values that are anti-conservative.
Vectorise the null: tile the treatment indicator into a (B, n) matrix and permute along axis 1 with rng.permuted(..., out=...). The statistic is a difference of means, so the treated sum alone determines it and the whole null is one matrix-vector product. Use the two-sided p-value (1 + count(|stat_perm| >= |stat_obs|)) / (B + 1); the plus-one on each side is not cosmetic, it keeps the p-value away from exactly zero and keeps the test valid at finite B.
For CUPED, fit theta = cov(y, x) / var(x) on the pooled data and use that same theta for the observed statistic and every relabelling. Pooled theta, like the pooled cap, carries no label information, so where in the loop you compute it is again only a performance question; fitting theta within arms is what goes wrong, because the adjusted outcome then depends on the labels and an observed-label fit frozen across all 20,000 relabellings breaks the match between observed and permuted statistics. x must be measured entirely before launch, which consumption_pre is. Expected variance reduction is about 1 - corr(y, x)^2; measure the achieved reduction from the two null distributions rather than asserting it.

Follow-up

The p-value is 0.04 with the cap and 0.31 without it. What do you report, and what did you pre-register?
Colleagues in a shared workspace can see the treated behaviour. How does that change the design and the estimate?
How many accounts would you need to detect a 5% lift given this outcome's distribution?

Net revenue retention on a cohort frozen twelve months back

Hard · retention · as-of join · cohort arithmetic

fct_subscription_period carries subscription_period_id, account_id, arr_cents, plan_code, term_start_date, term_end_date, booked_at, amendment_type, superseded_by_id (the subscription_period_id of the version that replaced this one, null on the live version of a lineage) and is_current. Compute net revenue retention for month M: the summed arr_cents at M for the set of accounts holding arr_cents > 0 at M-12, divided by that same set's arr_cents at M-12. An account can hold more than one live subscription, a churned account contributes zero rather than dropping out, and nothing signed after M-12 may enter either side. Return the ratio plus the expansion, contraction and churn components in cents.

Approach

Write one reusable as-of ARR snapshot parameterised by a date: rows whose term brackets the date AND whose booked_at is at or before the date, then only the version of each lineage that is still live at that date, then sum arr_cents per account. The booked_at guard matters because an amendment signed in advance otherwise co-exists with the term it replaces and double counts the account.
Collapse the lineage on superseded_by_id, not on any attribute of the contract. Keep a row when superseded_by_id IS NULL, or when the successor it points at was booked after the date. Ranking with ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id, plan_code ...) instead is wrong in both directions: an amendment that moves the account from one plan_code to another puts the old and new versions in different partitions, so both are rank 1, both bracket the date, and the account's arr_cents is counted twice; and two genuinely concurrent subscriptions that happen to share a plan_code land in one partition, so one of them is deleted.
Resolve the successor with a LEFT JOIN back to fct_subscription_period on subscription_period_id, and treat a missing successor as not superseded. An inner join would silently delete an account's ARR on a dangling pointer, which is a data-quality bug in the source, not a retention movement.
Never use is_current for the M-12 side. is_current describes today; using it at the historical snapshot backdates the present contract onto last year's cohort and makes retention look like 100 percent by construction.
Freeze the cohort from the M-12 snapshot where arr_cents > 0, then LEFT JOIN the M snapshot onto it and COALESCE the missing side to zero. An inner join deletes exactly the churned accounts, which is the single largest way this number gets overstated.
Return a ratio of sums, not a mean of per-account ratios. The two are different estimands: contraction is floored at zero while expansion is unbounded, so the mean of ratios is both biased relative to the aggregate and far noisier on a skewed revenue base.
Decompose per account on the delta: positive delta is expansion, negative delta with a non-zero M value is contraction, a zero M value is churn. The three components must reconcile to numerator minus denominator.
Prove no leakage: any account whose first contract began after M-12 must be absent from both sides, and the cohort row count must be identical in the numerator and denominator.

Follow-up

Net revenue retention can rise while the business shrinks. Show one mechanism and name the guardrail that catches it.
How do you handle an account that co-terms two subscriptions into one mid-window, so the subscription count changes but the money does not?
Finance computes this from invoiced amounts and gets a different number. Which is right for which question?

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.

Which visualization tools do you prefer for presenting insights to leadership, and why?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

Follow-up

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

Give an example of how you have optimized an inefficient workflow using technology.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you prioritize projects when you are managing multiple requests from different departments?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

Follow-up

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

Explain your process for A/B testing a new marketing strategy or business initiative.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

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

Measure named coverage at an assignment threshold you cannot randomise

Hard · regression-discontinuity · instrumental-variables · selection-bias

Named customer-success coverage is assigned to accounts whose arr_cents at fiscal-year start is at least $50,000. About 88% of accounts above the line receive a named owner and about 9% below it do, through documented exceptions. Roughly 200 accounts sit within $15,000 of the cutoff, and gross logo retention on the renewal-eligible base runs near 0.88. Estimate the effect of coverage on renewal, name the design, state its identifying assumptions and the test for each, and say whether this data can answer the question at all.

Approach

Say first why the naive comparison is unusable, because the answer turns on it. Coverage is assigned to the largest accounts because they are valuable and to distressed accounts because they are at risk, so selection runs in both directions at once and the naive estimate can come out with either sign depending on which rule dominated. Matching on observed size does not fix it: the risk signal that triggered coverage is the same signal that predicts renewal.
Name the design and the estimand together. This is a fuzzy regression discontinuity with the $50,000 threshold as an instrument for coverage. The estimator is the Wald ratio, the jump in renewal at the cutoff divided by the jump in coverage probability of 0.88 - 0.09 = 0.79, and the estimand is a local average treatment effect for accounts near $50,000 whose coverage is actually decided by the rule, not the average effect of coverage across the book.
Fit it as local linear regression on each side with a triangular kernel and a data-driven bandwidth (Imbens-Kalyanaraman, or Calonico-Cattaneo-Titiunik with bias-corrected robust intervals). A global polynomial fitted across the whole ARR range is not a substitute and is well documented to manufacture spurious jumps at interior points.
Test the assumptions instead of asserting them. Run a density test for bunching just above $50,000, which is exactly what a sales team structuring a deal at $50,001 to win coverage would produce and which invalidates the design outright. Check continuity at the cutoff of employee_band, acquisition_channel, deployment_model and pre-period usage. Run placebo cutoffs at other ARR values, and plot the estimate against bandwidth.
Do the power arithmetic before promising an answer. With about 100 accounts per side and a renewal base rate of 0.88 (standard deviation 0.325), the sharp-design MDE at 80% power and two-sided 0.05 is 2.80 * 0.325 * sqrt(2/100) = about 12.9 percentage points, and dividing by the 0.79 first stage gives about 16 points on the fuzzy estimand. No plausible effect of assigning an account manager is that large.
Give the honest verdict with a route forward attached. This design cannot answer the question on one fiscal year. Pool several years at the same cutoff, accepting the added assumption that the coverage model and the threshold's meaning were stable across them, or ask for a randomised holdout among accounts near the threshold, which is cheap to justify precisely because the rule is already arbitrary there.

Worked solution (45 min)

Plot the density of arr_cents in bins around $50,000 and run the manipulation test; stop and report the design as invalid if bunching is present.
Plot the first stage, share of accounts with a named owner against ARR, and confirm the jump is close to 0.79 and locally flat on each side.
Fit local linear regressions of renewal on ARR either side of the cutoff with a triangular kernel and data-driven bandwidth, take the Wald ratio, and report bias-corrected robust intervals.
Run covariate-continuity checks, placebo cutoffs, and a bandwidth-sensitivity curve for the point estimate.
Compute the MDE at the realised effective sample and write the verdict, powered or not, with the alternative design named.

Expected result: A fuzzy RD local average treatment effect at the $50,000 cutoff with a first stage of about 0.79, and an MDE of roughly 16 percentage points on the fuzzy estimand at about 100 accounts per side. The honest finding is that the design is underpowered by an order of magnitude relative to any credible coverage effect, so the recommendation is pooled fiscal years or a randomised holdout at the margin.

Verify it yourself

The first-stage jump and the outcome jump must be estimated on the same bandwidth. A Wald ratio assembled from two different bandwidths is not the regression discontinuity estimator.
Covariates that coverage could not have affected must be continuous at the cutoff. A jump in employee_band or acquisition_channel at $50,000 indicates either manipulation of the running variable or a second rule sharing the same threshold.
Point estimates should vary smoothly with bandwidth. An estimate that flips sign between a $10,000 and a $20,000 bandwidth is a fitting artefact rather than a finding.

Follow-up

The density test shows clear bunching just above $50,000. Is any part of the design salvageable, and what would you report instead?
Coverage also correlates with support ticket severity. Does adding severity as a control help, hurt, or do nothing in a regression discontinuity?
If you pool five fiscal years to gain power, what new identifying assumption have you taken on, and how would you check it?

Monthly logo churn triples with no change in satisfaction

Hard · renewal-eligible base · censoring · timestamp semantics

Monthly logo churn, computed as churned accounts divided by all paying accounts, tripled last month. Contracts are annual. From fct_subscription_period (account_id, term_start_date, term_end_date, amendment_type, auto_renew, booked_at, superseded_by_id, is_current) and dim_account (account_id, churned_at, account_status, employee_band, acquisition_channel), rebuild churn on the renewal-eligible base, separate calendar effects from customer behaviour, and state whether retention actually changed. Note that churned_at is sometimes set when the record was updated rather than at term end.

Approach

Rebuild the denominator as accounts whose term_end_date falls in the month. An account eleven months from renewal sits in the current denominator while being structurally incapable of entering the numerator, so on annual contracts the published rate understates the truth by roughly the reciprocal of the annual renewal fraction and moves with the signing calendar.
Plot the renewal-eligible base by month across two years. A signing surge twelve months earlier reproduces itself as an eligibility surge now, and a rate whose denominator ignores that tracks the sales calendar rather than customer sentiment.
Date each churn by term_end_date, never by churned_at or an update timestamp. Inspect the distribution of churned_at minus term_end_date: a backlog cleared in one batch appears as a mass at a single date and shifts losses into whichever month the operations team did its paperwork.
Apply the 45-day grace for late renewal paperwork so the most recent month and a half is marked not reportable, rather than printing a number that will rise once the paperwork lands.
Compare corrected gross logo retention against its own trailing distribution, and if a real change survives, cut it by employee_band, acquisition_channel and plan_tier before proposing any cause.

Follow-up

Some contracts in the window have not reached their renewal date. When does this require a survival estimator rather than a simple rate, and which one would you use?
How do you report churn to an audience that wants a monthly number when the underlying event is annual and lumpy?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.

Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.

Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.

Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.

Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.

Day 5 — Write SQL the way you will have to write it live

Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.

Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.

Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.

Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.

Getting an analysis acted on

Work that nobody used is a common and unflattering pattern in data careers, and interviewers probe for it. Have a story about an analysis that changed a decision, and be specific about how you got it in front of the person who could act. Also have one about work that went nowhere, with your reading of why.

How do you handle missing or unstructured data when building a new model?

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.
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?

What do you do when the data contradicts a stakeholder's intuition?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.

Follow-up

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

State the measured impact of your own work honestly

Hard · impact · causal inference · self-assessment

You are asked for the business impact of a renewal-risk worklist you shipped nine months ago. Customer success used it, and renewals in the covered segment came in 6 points above the prior year. Coverage was assigned by the team itself: they worked the top of your list and also the accounts they were already worried about. Produce the impact claim you are willing to defend, the number you refuse to claim, and the design you would have asked for at the start.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you can separate what you shipped from what you caused, and whether you would have built the measurement in rather than reconstructing it afterwards. Both halves are being scored.
Name the confound precisely. Coverage assignment is doubly selected: the largest accounts get an owner because they are valuable, and distressed accounts get one because they are at risk. The naive covered versus uncovered comparison mixes a strong positive selection with a strong negative one and can come out with either sign depending on which rule dominated. Matching on account size does not fix it, because the risk signal that triggered coverage is the same signal that predicts the outcome.
Split the claims by what each needs to be true. Ranking quality is defensible from precision at k on out-of-time renewals. Adoption is defensible from timestamps showing what share of listed accounts were contacted. The outcome claim is not defensible without a design, and saying so is the point of the exercise.
Look for identification before giving up on it. A capacity cut-off, a territory boundary, or a period in which the list existed but was unstaffed can assign coverage for reasons unrelated to account health, and any of those supports a bounded estimate.
State the design you would ask for now and its price: a randomly withheld slice of the list, held for two renewal quarters, with the expected cost in renewals stated openly. That cost is what it takes to be able to answer this question at all.
Give a bounded number rather than none. Six points with an explicit statement of how much of it you can attribute is more useful than either claiming the whole figure or declining to quantify anything.

Follow-up

Your manager wants the 6 points in a promotion packet. What wording do you accept, and what do you strike?
What would have had to be true for the naive covered versus uncovered comparison to be valid?
If the holdout costs the team real renewals, how do you justify asking for it, and to whom?