Interview guides · Dbiz.Ai

Dbiz.Ai Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Modeling drills for a Dbiz.Ai data scientist interview: baselines, regression interpretation, class imbalance, model defense.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Dbiz.Ai, you help shape the analytic strategies that drive the company's EdTech platform. This position is not merely about crunching numbers; it’s about formulating insights that have a direct impact on Dbiz.Ai's products, users, and overall business strategy. You will lead the design and delivery of scalable data science solutions, developing robust machine learning (ML) models and automation processes that enable data-led decision making at an enterprise scale.

Seniority shifts the scope more than the words in the title do. Earlier-career loops mostly check that you execute a well-posed analysis correctly; senior loops check that you can decide which question is worth answering and defend what you chose not to do.

Focus areas

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

Overview

Your work will influence a variety of core areas within Dbiz.Ai's products, ranging from user engagement metrics to adaptive learning algorithms. Given the complexity and scale of these challenges, your contributions will help enhance the platform's capabilities and improve learning outcomes for its users. You will work closely with cross-functional teams, ensuring that data science is embedded throughout Dbiz.Ai's product development lifecycle, which improves the effectiveness and reach of its solutions.

The Dbiz.Ai interview process

Dbiz.Ai candidates report 4 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Technical Screening

This round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.

What to demonstrate

Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it

How to prepare

Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither

Coding Assessment

Before anything else, this round is a reading test. You are given a small schema and a question phrased in business language, and most of the difficulty sits in the gap between them. Who counts as an active user, does a refunded order still count as an order, is that date column an event time or a load time. Weak answers start typing immediately and compute something precise about the wrong population. Strong ones pin the definition in one sentence, name the column that encodes it, then write the query. On a timed assessment with nobody to tell, write the definition in a comment anyway.

What to demonstrate

Whether an ambiguous term becomes a specific column and filter before any computation happens
Whether you read the schema for keys and cardinality rather than only for column names
Whether the result answers the question at the grain it was asked at, per user or per session or per day

How to prepare

Take three metrics you already use and write down the exact filter and exact grain behind each, then practise stating one of them in a single sentence out loud
On a schema you have never seen, spend the first minute writing what one row of each table means and which key it is unique on, then predict which joins can duplicate rows
Rehearse a version where the definition changes halfway through, and edit the query you have instead of starting over

Behavioral Interview

This round decides whether you owned a decision or watched one happen nearby. Interviewers for data roles listen for the point where the analysis stopped being a report and started changing what someone did, so build each story around that hinge: what was going to happen by default, what you found, and what happened instead. The most common weakness is a story that ends at delivery. If you can name the decision your work changed and the number that moved because of it, most follow-ups become easy.

What to demonstrate

Whether the decision was yours to influence, or whether you are narrating a team outcome in the first person
The counterfactual: what would have been done without your analysis, and why that default was worse
How far your involvement ran past the handoff, and whether you checked that the change did what you predicted

How to prepare

Pick three projects and write one sentence for each naming the decision-maker, the choice in front of them, and what they chose after seeing your work. If you cannot name a person and a choice, the story is not ready for this round.
Reconstruct the baseline for your strongest project from the original query or dashboard rather than memory, so the before-number survives a follow-up asking where it came from.
Prepare an honest version of a project where your recommendation was overruled, including what you did with the analysis afterwards.

Case Studies

A case round is decided by whether you leave the interviewer with a recommendation, not by how much analysis you narrate on the way there. The prompt is open on purpose, so the first job is to convert it into a decision someone could act on: ask what would be done differently depending on the answer. From there name the quantity that would settle it, state the assumptions you need, and commit. Candidates who cover more ground than anyone expected and still end on "it depends" score below candidates who scoped narrowly and said what they would do.

What to demonstrate

Whether the version of the question you choose to answer is genuinely narrower than the prompt and still worth answering
Whether the recommendation arrives as an action with a number attached, rather than as a summary of what you looked at
Whether assumptions are stated at the moment you rely on them, instead of collected into a disclaimer at the end
Whether you notice when a branch you are exploring would not change the decision either way

How to prepare

Take six open prompts and write only the scoping move for each: the one-sentence question you would actually answer and the decision it feeds. Give yourself three minutes per prompt and stop there.
Put a five-minute warning into every practice case and force a closing statement that names the action, the result that would justify it, and the result that would reverse it.
Record one case and count how long you talked before naming a measurable quantity. Past roughly five minutes, what you are calling scoping is narration.

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.

Treating raw request or usage volume as engagement

Most traffic in this domain is emitted by machines. Continuous-integration pipelines, scheduled batch jobs, synthetic monitors, backfills and client retries can all grow by an order of magnitude from one configuration change made by one engineer, and none of it represents a new decision to use the product. The inversion is what makes it dangerous: when the platform degrades, clients retry, so error-driven retry volume rises at the exact moment the customer is most likely to leave, and an engagement dashboard built on raw counts shows growth immediately before a churn. Filter on traffic_class and on successful status before anything else, and keep failed-request volume as its own separate series.

Comparing periods without accounting for seasonality or day-of-week

Compare whole weeks against whole weeks and check whether the same swing appeared in prior cycles or prior years before attributing it to anything you changed. Weekday and weekend populations often differ enough that a Tuesday-to-Saturday comparison is meaningless.

Reporting a mean for a heavy-tailed metric without saying what it hides

For spend, session length or items per order, a small fraction of units carries most of the total, so the mean has a wide standard error and one account can move it. Fix the handling before you see the result: cap or winsorise at a pre-declared percentile, and report the median or the share above a threshold next to the mean. Capping changes the estimand, so say which question the capped number answers, and check how much of any difference comes from the top 0.1 percent of units.

Questions & practice

Describe how you would architect a system to support continuous model retraining.

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.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

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?

Write a Python function to implement a decision tree classifier.

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.
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?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Join daily usage to the contract version live that day

Medium · as-of-join · pandas · numpy · contracts

fct_usage_daily has account_id, usage_date and net_amount_cents. fct_subscription_period has account_id, subscription_period_id, plan_tier, term_start_date, term_end_date, arr_cents and is_current, with one row per contract term version and every amendment inserting a new row. Attach to each usage row the subscription_period_id whose term brackets usage_date (term_start_date <= usage_date <= term_end_date). pd.merge_asof and an interval-condition merge are unavailable; use sorting and numpy.searchsorted. Then report monthly net revenue by plan_tier. Terms for one account do not overlap, and usage may fall outside every term.

Approach

Say out loud why the cheap version is wrong: joining on is_current stamps today's plan tier onto last year's usage, so every account that upgraded has its history reclassified and revenue-by-tier becomes a function of when the query ran.
Sort each account's terms by term_start_date and use np.searchsorted(term_start, usage_date, side='right') - 1 to get the last term that started on or before the usage date. Do it per account group, or globally after encoding (account_id, date) into one monotone key.
searchsorted only enforces the left edge. Validate the right edge afterwards — usage_date <= the candidate's term_end_date — and set the match to NA where it fails. That NA is usage in a gap between contracts and must stay visible instead of being folded into the expired term.
Assert non-overlap before trusting the lookup, and write the assertion so it is capable of passing. prev_end = terms.groupby('account_id').term_end_date.shift() is NaT on each account's first row, and NaT < Timestamp evaluates to False rather than NA, so a comparison followed by .fillna(True) has nothing left to fill and the assertion fires on every account's first term whatever the data looks like. Guard the null yourself: assert (prev_end.isna() | (prev_end < terms.term_start_date)).all(). The failure mode of getting this wrong is not a false alarm you notice once — it is an assertion someone deletes because it never passes, after which overlapping terms make searchsorted return one of them with no trace in the output.
Aggregate after the join, grouping by (usage_date month, plan_tier) with dropna=False so the unmatched bucket appears as its own row and the total still ties to the ungrouped sum of net_amount_cents.

Worked solution (35 min)

terms = terms.sort_values(['account_id','term_start_date']); prev_end = terms.groupby('account_id').term_end_date.shift(); assert (prev_end.isna() | (prev_end < terms.term_start_date)).all()
Per account group: idx = np.searchsorted(g.term_start_date.values, u.usage_date.values, side='right') - 1; rows with idx < 0 are unmatched.
Gather subscription_period_id, plan_tier and term_end_date by positional index, then null the match wherever usage_date > the gathered term_end_date.
monthly = joined.assign(month=joined.usage_date.dt.to_period('M')).groupby(['month','plan_tier'], dropna=False).net_amount_cents.sum()

Expected result: Exactly one output row per input usage row, a subscription_period_id that is NA precisely for usage outside every term, and a monthly table whose values sum to the ungrouped total of net_amount_cents once the NA-tier bucket is included.

Verify it yourself

len(joined) == len(usage); the join must not fan out.
joined.net_amount_cents.sum() == usage.net_amount_cents.sum().
For every matched row, assert term_start_date <= usage_date <= term_end_date directly rather than trusting searchsorted.
Run the non-overlap assertion on a frame where every account has exactly one term: prev_end is NaT throughout, so the assertion must pass. An assertion that fires there is testing the shift, not the data.
Spot-check one account that upgraded mid-term: its usage before the amendment must still carry the old plan_tier.

Follow-up

An amendment takes effect on the 17th of a month. How do you report that month's revenue by tier?
What changes if terms can overlap because of a co-term amendment?
How would you verify this against a SQL implementation using a BETWEEN condition?

Seven-day activation rate by signup cohort week

Easy · funnel · cohorts · censoring

dim_account carries account_id, created_at, is_internal and is_current; fct_api_request carries account_id, request_at, http_status, api_key_id and traffic_class. Build a signup cohort by the ISO week of created_at over accounts with is_internal = false. An account counts as activated when it issues a request with http_status < 400, a non-null api_key_id and traffic_class <> 'synthetic_monitor' within 168 hours of its own created_at. Return cohort accounts, activated accounts and the rate per week, and exclude any week that has not yet fully elapsed its 168-hour window.

Approach

Collapse dim_account to one row per account_id before anything else. It is a type 2 dimension, so a plan or status change gives the same account several rows; filtering to is_current = true is the cheapest correct choice here because created_at does not change across versions.
Express the window as interval arithmetic on the timestamptz column: request_at >= created_at AND request_at < created_at + interval '168 hours'. A date-difference of 7 days is a different and wrong condition for accounts created mid-day.
Test activation with EXISTS rather than a join to MIN(request_at). EXISTS short-circuits, keeps the cohort at one row per account, and cannot fan out.
Aggregate by date_trunc('week', created_at AT TIME ZONE 'UTC'), counting accounts and activated accounts, and divide as a ratio of counts.
Drop unreportable weeks: the last account in a cohort week is created just under week_start + 7 days, so the week is only complete once now() >= week_start + interval '14 days'. Without that filter the newest week always looks like a regression.

Follow-up

The median time-to-first-successful-call is more informative than a fixed-window rate. Why can you not compute it from this query, and what estimator does it need?
How would you separate accounts that never called from accounts that called and got only 4xx responses, and which of those is a product problem?

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.

Worked solution (45 min)

Write arr_asof(d) as a CTE or lateral: from fct_subscription_period s take rows with term_start_date <= d AND term_end_date >= d AND booked_at <= d, LEFT JOIN fct_subscription_period succ ON succ.subscription_period_id = s.superseded_by_id, keep the row when s.superseded_by_id IS NULL OR succ.subscription_period_id IS NULL OR succ.booked_at > d, then sum arr_cents per account_id across every surviving version.
Sanity-check the lineage rule on one amended account before going further: at a date after the amendment, the account must contribute exactly one version per lineage even when the amendment changed plan_code, term dates or both.
Materialise base = arr_asof(M-12) filtered to arr_cents > 0, and curr = arr_asof(M).
LEFT JOIN curr onto base on account_id and COALESCE(curr.arr_cents, 0) AS arr_now.
Compute nrr = sum(arr_now)::numeric / NULLIF(sum(base.arr_cents), 0), and the three components with SUM(...) FILTER on the sign of arr_now - base.arr_cents and on arr_now = 0.
Reconcile: assert sum(arr_now) - sum(base.arr_cents) = expansion - contraction - churn, and assert the cohort account count is identical on both sides.

Expected result: A single row with nrr as a ratio, plus expansion_cents, contraction_cents and churn_cents as positive magnitudes satisfying numerator minus denominator equals expansion minus contraction minus churn, over a cohort whose membership is fixed at M-12.

Verify it yourself

At each snapshot date, the surviving row count per account equals the number of distinct live subscription lineages on that account, not the number of contract versions bracketing the date.
For an account whose amendment changed plan_code, the snapshot returns one version and its snapshot ARR equals the amended arr_cents; swapping in a ROW_NUMBER partition on (account_id, plan_code) returns two versions for that account and inflates the side it sits on, which is the fastest way to see the bug.
The three components reconcile to the numerator-denominator delta to the cent.
The distinct account count is the same in the numerator and the denominator.
No account with a first term_start_date after M-12 appears anywhere in the output.
Re-running after new accounts sign leaves the ratio unchanged, which is the defining property of a frozen cohort.

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?

If you were tasked with reducing churn rates, what metrics would you focus on 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.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

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

How do you prioritize tasks when managing multiple projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
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.

Follow-up

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

How would you optimize a given code snippet for efficiency?

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.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

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?

You are given a dataset containing user engagement metrics. How would you analyze it to improve user retention?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?

Explain the differences between supervised and unsupervised learning.

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Design a seat-utilisation metric before enforcing licensed seat limits

Medium · seat utilisation · denominator design · service accounts · renewal timing

Seat limits are currently unenforced. Leadership wants a metric to decide whether to enforce them at renewal. You have dim_user_membership (user_id, account_id, role, seat_type, is_service_account, activated_at, deactivated_at, last_seen_at) and fct_subscription_period (account_id, contracted_seats, pricing_model, term_end_date, arr_cents, is_current). Define licensed seat utilisation at the account grain, state every exclusion in both the numerator and the denominator, and say what a value above 1.0 means. Deliver the metric plus the guardrail that protects against enforcement destroying more ARR than it recovers.

Approach

Numerator: distinct user_id in dim_user_membership with seat_type = 'licensed_paid', is_service_account = false, deactivated_at null and last_seen_at inside a trailing 28 days. Service accounts hold a membership and burn API keys but consume no human attention, so counting them inflates utilisation hardest on the most deeply integrated accounts, which is exactly backwards.
Denominator: contracted_seats from the fct_subscription_period version current at the evaluation date. Exclude accounts with pricing_model = 'pure_consumption' entirely, because contracted_seats is null there and the ratio is undefined rather than zero. A null coerced to zero produces an infinite ratio that will lead the report.
Interpret both tails and say what each means commercially. Above 1.0 means the entitlement is not enforced and humans are sharing seats, which is recoverable revenue. Persistently below roughly 0.5 is the most reliable available signal of a seat reduction at renewal, because buyers audit seat counts at renewal and at no other moment.
Guardrail: ARR at risk from enforcement, the sum of arr_cents over accounts with utilisation above 1.0 whose term_end_date falls inside the enforcement window. Enforcing on an account that responds by cutting seats at renewal converts a recoverable overage into a permanent downgrade, and the recovered revenue can be smaller than the loss.
Report the metric as a distribution with the two tails counted separately and the renewal calendar attached, because no account can act on enforcement until its own term ends. A fleet average of seat utilisation is a number nobody can act on.

Worked solution (20 min)

Build the current contract per account from fct_subscription_period where is_current = true, keeping contracted_seats, pricing_model, term_end_date and arr_cents, and drop pure_consumption rows.
Count active humans per account from dim_user_membership under the four filters, using distinct user_id per account_id, which is safe because the table is one row per membership and not one row per human.
Compute the ratio and bucket accounts into below 0.5, 0.5 to 1.0, and above 1.0, joining arr_cents and term_end_date.
Report ARR in each bucket and the share of that ARR renewing in the next two quarters.

Expected result: Three utilisation buckets with ARR and renewal timing attached, and a metric definition whose numerator excludes service accounts, guests, free collaborators and deactivated memberships, and whose denominator is contracted_seats from the contract version current at the evaluation date, with pure-consumption accounts excluded rather than counted as zero.

Verify it yourself

No account with pricing_model = 'pure_consumption' may appear, with a null or an infinite ratio.
Bucket ARR must sum to the total ARR over included accounts.
Summing per-account active-user counts across the fleet must be greater than or equal to the fleet-wide count of distinct user_id, because one person can hold memberships in several accounts; exact equality means multi-account users were deduplicated at the wrong grain.

Follow-up

last_seen_at is null for service accounts by definition. If the is_service_account flag is unreliable, what happens to your numerator, and how would you audit the flag?
Why a 28-day activity window rather than 7 or 90, and what evidence would change your answer?

Weekly active organisations fell nine percent over one week

Easy · seasonality · denominators · segmentation

A dashboard reports the weekly active organisation ratio on a trailing seven-day window ending each Wednesday. This week it reads nine percent below last week. You have fct_api_request (account_id, environment, traffic_class, http_status, request_at) and dim_account (account_id, billing_country, account_status, is_internal, is_current). Nothing was released. Decide whether usage actually fell, and hand back a corrected series plus a one-paragraph explanation that a non-analyst can repeat without you in the room.

Approach

Count the holiday-free business days inside each window before comparing them. A trailing seven-day window spans exactly five weekdays wherever it ends, so its business-day count can only fall to four or fewer when a public holiday lands inside it and can never reach six, while usage in this domain follows a hard five-to-two weekday cycle. Two windows holding different numbers of business days are not comparable whatever the product did.
Count distinct active accounts per calendar day for the last ten weeks and overlay the two windows. A calendar problem shows as a small number of weekdays sitting at weekend level, not as every day being uniformly lower.
Cut the daily series by billing_country and index each country-day to that country's trailing same-weekday median, which isolates a regional public holiday from a product change.
Check the denominator on its own: the metric divides by accounts whose account_status was in trial, free or active_paid for the whole week, so a batch suspension or status backfill moves the ratio with no change in the numerator at all.
Report the series with each window's business-day count and the holiday dates annotated beside it, and state the residual week-over-week change that survives once the calendar effect is removed. Compare against earlier windows holding the same number of business days rather than dividing by business days, since distinct-account counts are sublinear in window length and dividing would over-correct.

Follow-up

Distinct account counts are sublinear in the number of days in the window. Why does losing one of five business days reduce the count by noticeably less than twenty percent?
How would you make this metric comparable across countries with different holiday calendars without hand-maintaining a holiday table forever?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly 90 minutes a night on weekdays with one longer weekend block. The plan deliberately cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that finishing one thing a night beats half-starting four.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and set a baseline

Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list for everything else and keep it visible all week.
Take one 20-minute SQL prompt and one 10-minute metric question cold, and write the single sentence that says what blocked each attempt, since that sentence is what decides which two topics get the most evenings.
Set the week's one rule: one problem finished to completion every night, including the night you only have 40 minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with an explicit not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Day 2 — One query pattern, written three times

Choose the single pattern most likely to appear (a cohort retention grid, or a funnel counted by user) and write it three times from a blank file rather than editing the previous attempt.
On the third attempt, write the grain of every CTE as a comment before writing its body.
Stop at 90 minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix with another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent versions of the same query plus a note on what changed between them.

Day 3 — Only the statistics you will be asked to defend

Write, in under 200 words, how you would decide whether a difference between two groups is real: the test, its assumptions, and what you would switch to when an assumption fails.
Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a difference in proportions by hand on realistic numbers, then write in one sentence what changes if the two samples are paired rather than independent.
Write your answer to "what does a p-value mean", check it against a definition, and delete the version that describes it as the probability the hypothesis is true.

Deliverable: A 200-word written answer and one hand-computed interval you can reproduce under pressure.

Day 4 — One case, and the assumptions holding it up

Answer one product case aloud in 20 minutes with a recording running, then listen back with a pen and mark every claim you asserted without saying what it rested on: an assumed user behaviour, an assumed data source, an assumed baseline rate, an assumed grain.
Pick the three assumptions the recommendation actually depends on, write how you would check each one against data, and say which one being wrong would flip the recommendation rather than merely weaken it.
Write the four-step structure you used onto a card small enough to hold in working memory when you are nervous.

Deliverable: One recording, three load-bearing assumptions each with a written check, and a four-step structure card.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

Write a 90-second version and a four-minute version of your main project, and time both out loud rather than reading them.
Prepare answers to the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
Put one number in the first sentence and be able to say exactly where that number came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Day 6 — The one full rehearsal, in a longer weekend block

Run a 60-minute mock covering query work, a case and a behavioural question in a single sitting with no breaks, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Day 7 — Taper

Write the 20-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning of the interview: one query you can already write from a blank file, one metric you can define out loud, and nothing you have never seen before.
Re-read only your own notes from this week, and open no new material.
Write down the logistics: the tool you will be asked to work in, whether lookups are allowed, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the case structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

Being wrong in public

A number you shipped turned out to be wrong, and someone had already acted on it. That is one of the most useful stories a data person can carry. What is being scored is how fast you noticed, who you told first, and what you changed in the process so the same class of error could not repeat quietly.

Describe a challenging project you led and how you ensured its success.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
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?

Can you provide an example of how you mentored a junior data scientist?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Disagree with a product manager about an adoption claim

Medium · conflict · telemetry hygiene · adoption metrics

A product manager is about to present that a new SDK release drove a 40 percent rise in requests among adopting accounts, computed from fct_api_request counts grouped by sdk_version. You find the rise is concentrated in traffic_class equal to ci, that rows with is_retry true grew alongside it, and that restricting to interactive non-retry traffic leaves a 3 percent lift. The launch review is in two days. Decide how you raise this, with whom and in what order, and what you propose the claim becomes.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you can correct a colleague without ambushing them, and whether your own counter-analysis carries the caveats theirs lacked. Go to the product manager privately before the review. A correction delivered in the room is a status move and loses the argument you are actually trying to win.
Bring a decomposition rather than a verdict: the same accounts and window, requests split by traffic_class with retries held out as their own column, so their 40 percent and your 3 percent reconcile line by line and neither has to be taken on trust.
Reproduce their figure exactly first. If you cannot land on 40 percent with their method, you do not yet know what you are disagreeing with.
Ask whether the continuous-integration lift is itself valuable. An account wiring the SDK into its pipeline has increased integration depth, which is the dominant switching cost in this domain, so the honest claim may be that integration depth rose while interactive usage moved 3 percent. Improving the claim beats deleting it.
Name the mechanism that makes the raw count dangerous: clients retry when the platform degrades, so retry volume climbs exactly when the customer is most at risk. Pull the 5xx rate for the same accounts and window before anyone concludes anything, and note that billable_units is zero on 5xx rows, so request counts and billable quantities diverging is itself the signal.
Close with a standing definition for launch metrics so the next release does not repeat the exercise.

Follow-up

The product manager argues that continuous-integration traffic is real usage and declines to split it out. Is that position defensible, and under what metric definition?
Suppose the 5xx rate for those same accounts also rose 40 percent. What is the claim now?
The review happens and the raw number is presented regardless. What do you do next, and what do you not do?