DeepL Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at DeepL, you are at the intersection of cutting-edge language AI and high-impact product strategy. Your work is fundamental to how DeepL translates complex linguistic data into industry-leading products that millions of users rely on daily. You will not just be building models; you will be the bridge between raw data, engineering infrastructure, and the strategic product decisions that drive the company’s growth.

If the team owns experimentation, expect depth past a two-sample test: minimum detectable effect and its roughly inverse-square-root dependence on sample size (holding power, significance level and variance fixed), variance reduction from pre-period covariates, interference between units, and when a sequential design is the right call.

Focus areas

• Report only matured cohorts for loss metrics
• Set fraud thresholds by expected cost
• Reconcile amounts in minor units and currency

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of technical rigor and product intuition. You will be expected to tackle ambiguous problems, design robust experiments, and derive actionable insights that influence the product roadmap. Whether you are analyzing user behavior to optimize translation quality or designing metrics to measure engagement, your impact is direct and highly visible within the organization.

The environment at DeepL is fast-paced and intellectually demanding. Success here requires a proactive mindset, the ability to communicate complex findings to non-technical stakeholders, and a deep, hands-on command of data manipulation and statistical inference. You will be working in a culture that values precision, technical excellence, and a user-first approach to problem-solving.

The DeepL interview process

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

Screening Call

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Technical Proficiency Assessment

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

Behavioral Assessment

Behavioural answers from data candidates get audited in a way that answers from other roles do not. When you say a model lifted retention, the next question is the denominator, the window, and how you knew the lift was not seasonal. So attach the measurement to each claim while you tell it: what the metric was before, over what period, and against what comparison. Numbers with no baseline read as rounded-up memory, and one unsupported figure tends to make the rest of the story sound rehearsed.

What to demonstrate

• Whether each impact number arrives with a baseline, a window and a comparison, or as a bare percentage
• Whether you can name the method that attributed the effect to your work (an experiment, a staged rollout, a seasonal control) or concede the link was correlational
• Whether the magnitudes stay internally consistent when the interviewer multiplies them against the scale you described earlier

How to prepare

• For each story, write the impact line as metric, value before, value after, window, and how attribution was established. Any line missing two of those five is a follow-up you will answer badly.
• Re-derive one headline number from the source table rather than the deck that reported it. Resume numbers drift upward across retellings.
• Decide in advance which figures you cannot share, and prepare the ratio or relative change you can give instead, so a confidentiality limit does not read as evasion.

Where candidates lose points

Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs

Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.

Reading the most recent months of fraud and dispute rates as final

Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, and several reason codes run considerably longer, so the disputes belonging to a recent transaction month have simply not been filed yet. Any chart attributed by transaction date therefore slopes down at the right edge regardless of what is happening. The fix is to report only matured cohorts, or to apply development factors estimated from completed months and to show the estimate as an estimate.

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.

Reaching for a model before the target metric exists

Before naming an algorithm, write down the label, the prediction time, and the action that changes when the score crosses a threshold. If you cannot say what decision the output drives, any modelling choice is guesswork dressed up as method.

Questions & practice

Simulate false alarms in a merchant chargeback monitoring rule

Medium · simulation · rare events · monitoring thresholds

Baseline matured first-chargeback rate is 12 per 10,000 settled transactions. A monitoring rule alerts when a merchant's observed monthly rate exceeds twice baseline. For monthly settled transaction counts of 500, 2,000, 10,000 and 50,000, simulate the false-alarm probability per merchant-month under the baseline, and the power to detect a merchant whose true rate is 30 per 10,000. Then, for a portfolio of 4,000 merchants split 60, 25, 10 and 5 percent across those four counts, give the expected number of false alarms per month.

Approach

1. Recognise the rule is a threshold on an integer count, not on a continuous rate. At n = 500, twice baseline is 24 per 10,000, so the first observable value above it is 2 chargebacks, or 40 per 10,000. Derive the trigger count for every n before simulating anything.
2. Draw binomial counts with numpy at p = 0.0012 and take the share at or above the trigger for the false-alarm rate, then repeat at p = 0.0030 for power. Use at least 200,000 draws per cell so a probability near 0.001 has a usable standard error.
3. Cross-check every simulated cell against the Poisson approximation with lambda = n*p, which is tight here because p is tiny. A mismatch almost always means the trigger count is off by one.
4. Weight the per-merchant false-alarm probabilities by the portfolio mix, and report the share of expected alerts contributed by each size band rather than only the total.
5. Close on the operating consequence: a fixed multiplicative threshold is not a constant false-alarm rate across merchant sizes, so either the threshold scales with n or small merchants need a minimum volume before the rule applies.

Follow-up

• How would you set a threshold that holds the false-alarm rate roughly constant across merchant size?
• The rule reads the transaction month, but disputes arrive for up to 120 days afterwards. What does that do to the alert and how would you fix it?
• What does a month of these false alarms cost, and how would you decide whether it is worth paying?

Estimate a delinquency roll-rate matrix and project twelve months

Hard · roll rates · markov chain · survivorship

fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, as_of_month_end, months_on_book, delinquency_bucket, charge_off_flag, prepaid_in_full_flag and restructured_flag. Build a month-to-month transition matrix over the five delinquency buckets plus absorbing charged_off and prepaid states. Loans that stop appearing must be routed to an absorbing state rather than dropped. Project the current book forward 12 months by repeated matrix multiplication and report the projected share reaching charge-off. Handle restructured_flag explicitly, and name one place the Markov assumption fails on this data.

Approach

1. Build consecutive month pairs per loan by shifting as_of_month_end within loan_id, then verify the shifted value is exactly one month later. A gap is not a transition, it is an exit you have not resolved yet.
2. Resolve exits before counting anything. A loan whose last row carries charge_off_flag moves to charged_off, one carrying prepaid_in_full_flag moves to prepaid, and one that disappears with neither is a data question to raise rather than silently discard, because discarding it is survivorship that inflates every cure rate.
3. Count pairs into a 7 by 7 matrix and row-normalise. Assert every row sums to one and the two absorbing rows are the identity; a row that does not sum to one means exits were dropped.
4. Decide and state the restructure rule. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a dpd_60_89 to current move on a restructured loan is not a cure. Either give restructured loans their own state or carry the pre-restructure bucket, but do not let that move land in the cure cell.
5. Project by taking the current bucket distribution as a row vector and multiplying by the matrix twelve times. Report the charged_off entry, and report it again from an all-current starting vector so the reader can see how much of the projection comes from loans that are already delinquent today.
6. State the homogeneity failure plainly: transition rates depend strongly on months_on_book, so one pooled matrix applied to a book with a young mix understates early-life delinquency. If the mix is moving, estimate separate matrices by seasoning band.

Worked solution (45 min)

1. Sort by loan_id and as_of_month_end, shift to form (from_state, to_state) pairs, and flag pairs whose month gap is not exactly one.
2. For each loan's final row, assign the absorbing destination from charge_off_flag or prepaid_in_full_flag, and list loans that vanish with neither as an exception count to report.
3. Apply the restructure rule, then build the 7 by 7 count matrix with a cross-tabulation over ordered state categories and row-normalise it.
4. Assert row sums equal one and absorbing rows are the identity, then take the current month's bucket distribution as a row vector.
5. Multiply twelve times, report the charged_off component, and repeat from an all-current vector for comparison.

Expected result: A 7 by 7 row-stochastic matrix with identity rows for charged_off and prepaid, a current-to-current diagonal typically above 0.95, roll rates rising with bucket depth, and a 12-month projected charge-off share of a few percentage points from an all-current start and materially higher from the actual book.

Verify it yourself

• Every row sums to one within floating-point tolerance, and both absorbing rows are exactly the identity.
• No mass sits in cells that skip a bucket upward, such as dpd_1_29 to dpd_60_89 in one month; if there is, the pairs are not actually consecutive months.
• The projection from an all-current start is strictly below the projection from the real book distribution.
• Backtest by estimating on months up to t minus 12 and comparing the projected distribution with the realised one at t; a systematic optimistic gap points at dropped exits or at seasoning, not at noise.

Follow-up

• How would you validate the projection against what actually happened, and over what window?
• The cure rate out of dpd_30_59 rose five points last quarter. What are the candidate explanations and how would you separate them?
• When would you prefer a vintage curve to a roll-rate projection, and why?

Build a vintage delinquency table without pivot or unstack

Easy · vintage analysis · cohorts · groupby · cumulative max

fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, origination_month, months_on_book, days_past_due, charge_off_flag and restructured_flag. Produce a DataFrame with one row per origination_month and columns for months_on_book 0 through 12, each cell holding the share of that vintage's funded loans that had ever reached 90 or more days past due, or charge-off, by that age. You may not use pivot, pivot_table, crosstab or unstack. Cells for ages a cohort has not yet reached must be NaN rather than zero.

Approach

1. Define the per-row indicator as days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag, then take a cumulative maximum of it per loan ordered by months_on_book, because the metric is reached-by-age-m, not in-that-state-at-age-m.
2. Deal with restructuring before the cumulative max. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a restructured loan re-enters at current and, without the cumulative maximum carrying its pre-restructure worst state, reads as a cure.
3. Fix the denominator once as the count of distinct loan_id per origination_month across the whole cohort. Prepaid and charged-off loans stop producing rows, so a denominator recomputed at each age silently shrinks exactly where losses land.
4. Aggregate with groupby(['origination_month','months_on_book'])['ever_90'].sum(), then pre-build the output frame indexed by sorted origination months with integer columns 0 to 12 and assign from the grouped Series by .loc on its index.
5. Mask cells beyond each cohort's maximum observed months_on_book so an immature cell reads NaN instead of an artificially low rate.

Follow-up

• Two adjacent vintages diverge at months_on_book 6. How would you separate seasoning, mix shift and a genuine credit-quality change?
• The three most recent vintages look best on this table. What do you check before saying so?
• How does the table change if charge-off policy moved from 180 to 120 days past due partway through the series?

Write a query using SQL window functions to calculate running totals or cohort-based trends.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
2. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
3. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

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

Explain how you would join multiple large tables while minimizing query execution time.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
2. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
3. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

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

Vintage ninety-plus rate at twelve months on book

Medium · vintage analysis · window functions · right censoring

From fct_loan_performance_monthly, build a vintage table keyed on origination_month: the share of each cohort that ever reached days_past_due of 90 or more, or charge_off_flag = true, at or before months_on_book = 12. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so for any loan with restructured_flag true, evaluate only the month ends strictly before its first restructured month. Return origination_month, loans_funded, bad_loans and bad_rate. Exclude any cohort that does not yet have a months_on_book = 12 observation for every loan still on book.

Approach

1. Establish the cohort denominator from the first month end each loan appears at, months_on_book = 0, so a loan is counted once in its origination_month rather than once per monthly row.
2. Find each loan's first restructured month with MIN(as_of_month_end) FILTER (WHERE restructured_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id), or the equivalent grouped subquery, and keep it null for loans never restructured.
3. Flag a loan bad if any row with months_on_book <= 12 and as_of_month_end earlier than that first restructured month has days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag = true, which is what 'pre-restructure worst state' means in practice.
4. Gate maturity by requiring the cohort's newest month end to be at least 12 months after origination_month, and report immature cohorts as incomplete rather than letting them appear at a flattering low rate.
5. Aggregate to one row per origination_month and read the column downward, not across calendar time, because the whole point is comparing cohorts at equal age.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. CTE 1: per loan_id, derive origination_month, the first restructured month end, and the maximum months_on_book observed.
2. CTE 2: join back to the monthly rows, filter to months_on_book <= 12 and to month ends before any restructure, then flag bad with a BOOL_OR.
3. CTE 3: aggregate to origination_month with COUNT() as loans_funded and COUNT() FILTER (WHERE is_bad) as bad_loans.
4. Apply the maturity gate and compute bad_rate with a numeric cast.

Expected result: One row per matured origination_month with loans_funded, bad_loans and a bad_rate between 0 and 1. The most recent immature cohorts are absent from the output entirely rather than present with a small bad_rate.

Verify it yourself

• SUM(loans_funded) across reported cohorts equals COUNT(DISTINCT loan_id) restricted to those same origination months.
• Recomputing without the months_on_book cap raises bad_rate monotonically for every cohort, and raises it most for the oldest, which is the seasoning effect made visible.
• No cohort in the output has a maximum months_on_book below 12.

Follow-up

• Should a restructure inside 12 months count as bad in its own right? Argue both sides and say what you would actually ship.
• A loan that prepaid in full at month 4 never had a chance to go 90 days past due. In or out of the denominator, and why?
• The 2025-11 cohort is two points worse at month 12 than its neighbours. What three queries do you run before you call it a credit-quality change?

Given a dataset of translation requests, how would you aggregate usage metrics per user?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
2. Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
3. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

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?

How do you manage competing priorities when working on multiple data projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
2. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
3. 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?

If an A/B test shows a significant drop in a key metric, how do you perform a metric drop diagnosis?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
2. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
3. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

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?

What metrics would you track to measure the success of a new translation product feature?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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?

What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you have encountered in your career?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
2. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
3. Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

• What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
• How would you handle interference between treated and control units?

How do you determine the statistical significance of an A/B test result?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
2. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
3. Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.

Follow-up

• What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
• How would you handle interference between treated and control units?

Price a false decline when the label does not exist

Hard · proxy metrics · selection bias · randomised holdout

Your expected-cost threshold needs a figure for what a false decline costs beyond the margin on the blocked transaction. fct_payment_authorization records the decline, nothing records what the customer did next elsewhere, and declined transactions never produce a fraud outcome, so neither side of the error is directly observable. Propose the measurement: the proxy you would build from the tables you have, the design that yields an unbiased estimate for at least part of the score range, the bias in each, and the single sentence you would attach to the number when it reaches a pricing decision.

Approach

1. Write down what is unobservable and why. The counterfactual spend of a customer who was not declined, and the fraud label on any transaction the rule blocked, are both missing because of the decision itself. Missingness that depends on the decision is not fixed by matching on observed covariates.
2. Build the observational proxy anyway and be specific. For customers receiving a first risk-rule decline in a window, compare settled volume and active status over the following 30 and 90 days against customers matched on pre-period settled volume, tenure, segment and channel mix who attempted a comparable transaction and were approved. The bias runs one way: matching conditions on having attempted something that scored near the cutoff, and part of the declined group are genuine fraudsters whose disappearance is a saving rather than a loss, so the estimate overstates the damage.
3. Buy one unbiased local estimate. Hold a small random share of authorizations inside a defined risk_score band out of the decline rule and approve them, sizing the sample in advance from the expected fraud rate in that band so the cost of the experiment is known before it runs. The result is unbiased for that band only, and it is simultaneously the only source of fraud labels in the declined region.
4. Bound the extrapolation instead of hiding it. Run the holdout in two or three adjacent bands and report the spread. If the effect is flat across bands a constant is defensible; if it is steep, quote band-specific figures and decline to supply a single number.
5. Handle the window. Attrition after a decline can resolve over months, so a 90-day window truncates it and the randomised estimate is a lower bound on long-run damage at the same time as the observational version is an upper bound. Stating both directions is what makes the number safe to use.
6. Write the sentence that travels with the number: what it is (an estimate from a randomised holdout in one score band over a 90-day window), what it is not (a measurement anywhere else on the score range), and which way it is likely to be wrong.

Worked solution (40 min)

1. Define the decline cohort and the matched comparison cohort precisely, including matching variables and the pre-period window, and produce the 30-day and 90-day settled-volume difference.
2. Decompose the declined cohort into customers who never transact again and customers who transact less, since fraudsters concentrate in the first group and that split tells you how much of the estimate is contamination.
3. Write the holdout design: score band, sample share, expected fraud rate in band, expected cost of running it, and the run length needed to detect an effect large enough to change the cutoff.
4. Recompute p* = C_FP / (C_FP + C_FN) at the top and bottom of your estimated cost range and state whether the range changes the cutoff you would set.
5. Write the one-sentence caveat that will be quoted alongside the number in the pricing decision.

Expected result: Two numbers with opposite biases, an observational estimate labelled as an upper bound and a randomised in-band estimate labelled unbiased for that band only, plus a sensitivity table showing how p* moves across the range and an explicit statement of whether the residual uncertainty changes the decision.

Verify it yourself

• If the cost range moves p* by less than the granularity at which the rule can actually be set, further measurement is not worth buying and that is the finding.
• The observational estimate should exceed the randomised one in magnitude. If it does not, the matching is capturing something other than the effect of the decline and needs re-examining.
• Removing customers with zero prior settled volume from both cohorts should shrink the observational estimate, since new-account fraud concentrates there.

Follow-up

• Compliance and finance both object to deliberately approving transactions you believe are fraudulent. What is your answer, and how do you size the holdout?
• Your interval spans the decision boundary. What do you recommend?
• How would you detect that this number has gone stale?

Fraud losses appear to halve in recent transaction months

Medium · right censoring · development factors · maturity

A weekly chart attributes fct_card_dispute cases to the requested_at month of the linked fct_payment_authorization row. The two most recent months show the first-chargeback rate falling by half, and a risk rule shipped six weeks ago. Columns: dispute_id, auth_id, dispute_category, dispute_stage, opened_at, disputed_amount_minor, liability_shift_flag, outcome, net_loss_minor, resolved_at. Decide whether the rule worked, and produce the version of the chart you would sign your name to.

Approach

1. Separate the two dates explicitly. opened_at is when a case was filed, requested_at is when the transaction happened. Attributing by transaction month is the right causal choice and is exactly what makes the newest months structurally incomplete.
2. Measure the filing lag rather than assuming it: the distribution of opened_at minus requested_at over fully developed months, split by dispute_category, and the age at which around 95 percent of cases have arrived.
3. Build a development triangle of transaction month by months of development on cumulative case counts, and estimate age-to-age factors from the columns that are complete.
4. Develop the immature months with those factors and plot the result as an estimate with a visible band, kept visually distinct from the matured series rather than blended into it.
5. State the assumption the method needs: a stable development pattern across cohorts. A change in filing behaviour, merchant mix or the dispute team's own backlog breaks it, so inspect factor stability down each column before relying on the estimate.
6. Only then evaluate the rule, comparing pre-change and post-change cohorts at equal development age.

Follow-up

• What leading indicator would you accept while the cohort matures, and what is its known bias?
• How does liability_shift_flag change which disputes you should expect to see in the first place?
• If the rule also blocked good transactions, where does that cost appear, and is any of it in this chart?

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.

Stories where someone disagreed with you

Have two ready. In one, the data was on your side and you had to move someone who outranked you. In the other, the pushback was correct and you changed position. The second is the harder story and it lands better, because it shows you separate being right from being attached to an answer. Name the person's actual objection.

How do you handle missing or malformed data in your SQL pipelines before analysis?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
3. 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?

Defend a vintage finding that contradicts the portfolio dashboard

Medium · vintage analysis · mix shift · stakeholder pushback

The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.

Approach

1. Reconcile before you contradict: show that aggregating your vintage table along the calendar diagonal reproduces the published blended series, so the disagreement is about age mix rather than about data quality.
2. Make the mechanism arithmetic rather than rhetorical: a loan cannot reach 90 days past due before it is 90 days old, so rapid origination growth shifts weight onto young months-on-book where the rate is structurally near zero.
3. Show every vintage rather than a selected pair, all indexed at months_on_book equal to 12, with cohort sizes printed beside each curve so nobody can claim the divergence rests on a thin cohort.
4. Handle restructuring explicitly, because restructured_flag resets days_past_due: count each loan on its worst pre-restructure state, or recent vintages will look better than they are.
5. Close on the decision rather than the chart: state what the divergence implies for the cutoff or the channel mix, and state in advance what evidence would make you withdraw the claim.

Follow-up

• Two cohorts differ at month 12. How do you separate a seasoning effect from a genuine credit-quality effect?
• Someone argues the recent vintages are simply a broker-channel mix shift. How do you test that, and what would confirm it?

Allocate one analyst-week across three competing risk requests

Medium · prioritisation · decision deadlines · stakeholder negotiation

Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.

Approach

1. Score each request on the decision it unblocks rather than on effort or on how loudly it arrived: what changes if it is late, and is that change reversible.
2. Separate deadline from value. The nine-day renewal is a hard, irreversible date with a bounded prize; the six-week cutoff has slack but a much larger downside if it ships unmeasured; the reserving number has no date but feeds external reporting, which is its own kind of hard.
3. Hunt for the cheap partial in each: a decline teardown restricted to the top merchants by declined value usually answers the contract question at a fraction of the full cut.
4. Sequence by hard date first, then by largest irreversible downside, and deliver the trade-off to all three sponsors in one message rather than three, so nobody negotiates privately against a version you told someone else.
5. Name what is dropped and who now owns that consequence, in writing, so the trade-off is visible rather than silently absorbed by you.

Follow-up

• The credit sponsor escalates to your manager. What do you change, and what do you refuse to change?
• How would you make this allocation reproducible so the next contested week is a rule application rather than a negotiation?