Interview guides · Deloitte

Deloitte Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Deloitte Machine Learning Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, practice questions with worked solutions and a 7-day prep plan.

The 60-second brief

As a Machine Learning Engineer at Deloitte, you sit at the intersection of advanced technical innovation and high-stakes business strategy. You are not merely building models; you are architecting scalable AI solutions that help clients navigate complex digital transformations, optimize operational efficiency, and unlock new value from their data. Whether working on Conversational AI, predictive analytics, or custom machine learning pipelines, your work directly influences how global organizations solve their most pressing challenges.

Scope in the operational half of the job when the seat carries on-call. Rollout, rollback and what you would put on a dashboard belong inside a design answer rather than after it, and an answer that never reaches them reads as someone who has built systems but not run them.

Focus areas

Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors
Choose indexes from the query's access path
Make every write idempotent under retry

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of deep technical expertise and the ability to communicate complex concepts to stakeholders who may not have a technical background. You will function as both an engineer and a consultant, translating business requirements into robust, production-ready machine learning architectures. Because Deloitte operates across diverse industries, you will encounter a wide variety of problem spaces, making this an ideal environment for engineers who thrive on variety, technical rigor, and strategic impact.

Where to focus your preparation

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

Preparation focus

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

Running a schema change as though the lock lasts as long as the statement

In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE that needs an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock must first wait for every open transaction touching that table, and while it waits, later queries needing a conflicting lock queue behind it rather than overtaking it. A DDL statement that would execute in milliseconds, issued while a thirty-second analytics query is open, therefore stalls all traffic on that table for thirty seconds: the outage length is set by the longest open transaction, not by the change. The defences are specific and worth knowing by name - set lock_timeout low and retry rather than queue, add columns without a volatile default so no table rewrite occurs (from version 11 a non-volatile default is a metadata-only change), build indexes with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY while accepting that it cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails, and add constraints as NOT VALID followed by a separate VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes a weaker lock.

Paginating with LIMIT/OFFSET over a set that changes while the client is reading it

OFFSET n makes the database produce and discard n rows before returning anything, so the cost of a page grows with its depth rather than with its size and page 500 costs five hundred pages of work. The correctness problem is worse than the cost: if a row is inserted or reordered between two page fetches, rows shift across the offset boundary and are either skipped entirely or returned twice, and neither outcome leaves any trace in the response for the client to detect. Keyset pagination - WHERE (sort_key, id) < ($last_sort_key, $last_id) ORDER BY sort_key DESC, id DESC LIMIT n, backed by an index in exactly that order - reads only the rows it returns and is stable against concurrent inserts. It requires the tie-break column: a timestamp is not unique, and duplicate sort keys straddling a page boundary reintroduce the skip it was adopted to remove.

Sharing mutable state with no stated owner

Say which thread, request or task owns each mutable structure, and what protects it when the answer is more than one: a lock, a queue that hands ownership across, or an immutable copy per reader. A structure documented as safe for concurrent reads is usually not safe for a concurrent write alongside those reads.

Hardcoding to the sample inputs

Solve the stated problem rather than the two examples; special-casing a literal to make a sample pass is obvious immediately and reads as either a misunderstanding or an attempt to fake progress. If you genuinely cannot generalise yet, say which part is a stub and what would replace it.

Questions & practice

Explain the concept of gradient descent and how you would mitigate the risk of vanishing gradients.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Explain the difference between bagging and boosting algorithms.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.

Follow-up

Where could label leakage enter this setup?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

How would you deploy a machine learning model to a cloud environment while ensuring scalability?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.

Follow-up

What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Describe the trade-offs between precision and recall in a high-stakes classification model.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

Canonicalise a request body into a stable idempotency fingerprint

Medium · parsing · canonicalisation · hashing

idempotency_key.request_fingerprint is a SHA-256 over the method, path and canonicalised body, and a retry whose fingerprint differs must be rejected with 422 rather than served the stored response. Write the canonicaliser. Bodies are JSON up to 256 KB nested at most 32 levels; clients vary key order, whitespace and unicode escaping, and some send 64-bit ids as JSON numbers. Produce a deterministic byte string such that semantically identical bodies match and any semantic difference does not. State your complexity and name two normalisations you refuse to perform.

Approach

Parse once into a tree, then re-serialise under fixed rules: object keys sorted, array order preserved, one escaping convention, no insignificant whitespace. Parsing is O(n) and sorting keys is O(k log k) per object, so O(n log n) overall with O(depth) stack, and the 32-level cap is enforced during parsing because hostile nesting is how a canonicaliser becomes a stack overflow.
Sort keys by their UTF-8 bytes and say why the obvious implementation is wrong in some runtimes: a default string comparison that orders by UTF-16 code units places surrogate pairs, meaning code points from U+10000 up, below U+E000 to U+FFFF, which is not UTF-8 byte order, so two services written in different languages disagree on the same document.
Do not re-encode numbers through a double. IEEE-754 binary64 represents integers exactly only up to 2^53, so normalising a 19-digit id through a float changes it, and 1 against 1.0 cannot be reconciled without deciding whether they are the same value. Preserve the literal token, and require ids as strings at the API boundary if you want them comparable.
Reject duplicate keys rather than picking one. JSON permits them and parsers disagree, most keeping the last, so any choice you make ties the fingerprint to a parser detail that the code handling the request does not necessarily share.
Frame the hash preimage so concatenation cannot collide: delimit or length-prefix the method, path and body, otherwise one request's fields can be rearranged into another request with the same byte stream and the same fingerprint.
Name the refusals and their consequence: no case folding, no dropping of null-valued keys, no Unicode normalisation. Each makes two different requests fingerprint alike, and the resulting failure is the worst one this table has, since the second request is answered with the first one's stored response and its effect never happens.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the serialiser: recursive emit with a depth counter, objects sorted by UTF-8 key bytes, arrays in order, strings escaped by one fixed rule, numbers emitted as their original token.
Run it over three bodies: the same object with keys reordered, the same object with \u0041 written as A, and one with a nested array reversed. The first two must produce identical bytes and the third must not.
Take the id 9007199254740993, round-trip it through a double, show it returns as 9007199254740992, then state the rule that prevents this.
Define the hash preimage explicitly with its delimiters, and construct a pair of (path, body) inputs that would collide without them.

Expected result: A canonicaliser that is O(n log n) in body size with an enforced depth cap, sorts keys by UTF-8 byte order, preserves array order, keeps number literals verbatim, rejects duplicate keys, and feeds a delimited preimage to SHA-256, together with a stated list of normalisations deliberately not performed and the failure each would cause.

Verify it yourself

Key reordering and whitespace changes produce identical fingerprints while reordering an array does not.
A body containing an integer above 2^53 fingerprints identically after a parse and re-serialise round trip.
Two requests differing only in a field the endpoint ignores produce different fingerprints, and you can say why that is the safe direction to err.

Follow-up

A client sends the same logical request with an extra field your API ignores. Same key, different fingerprint, so you return 422. Is that the right answer?
Where does the fingerprint get computed relative to request decompression and the body-size limit?
The endpoint takes 1,000 requests per second with 256 KB bodies. What does hashing cost, and does it belong at the edge or in the core service?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.

Approach

Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.
Say what a soft delete must do besides setting deleted_at: increment auth_version so existing tokens stop validating, leave resource.owner_user_id and resource_revision.actor_user_id intact, and accept that the address is retained — erasure is a different requirement answered by scrubbing the column, not by a DELETE that would break those references.

Follow-up

A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?
What changes if a user may hold membership in two tenants?

Hold a per-tenant active cap against concurrent creates

Hard · write skew · isolation levels · constraints

A tenant on the standard plan may hold at most 50 resources with status='active'. The create handler runs SELECT count(*) FROM resource WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active', compares to 50, then inserts. Two creates arrive 3 ms apart on different instances and the tenant lands at 51. Name the anomaly, say whether PostgreSQL 16 READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ prevents it and why, then give an implementation that holds the cap at READ COMMITTED with the exact statements. Finally, say what changes when the cap is 'at most one running export per tenant' on job_run.

Approach

Name it: write skew. The two transactions read an overlapping set and write disjoint rows, so there is no row-level conflict for the engine to detect and each commit is individually legal.
Rule out the levels precisely. READ COMMITTED takes a fresh snapshot per statement and takes no lock on the counted rows, so both see 49. PostgreSQL's REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable reads and phantoms within the snapshot but still admits write skew, because the anomaly is not a re-read of a changed row, it is a read of a set that a concurrent transaction invalidates. Only SERIALIZABLE closes it, by tracking the read dependency and aborting one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001 — a guarantee that exists only if the application re-runs the whole transaction from the read.
Convert the set predicate into a single-row conflict: keep tenant.active_resource_count and run UPDATE tenant SET active_resource_count = active_resource_count + 1 WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND active_resource_count < 50 in the same transaction as the INSERT. Zero affected rows is the cap, returned as 409. The row lock serialises the decision at any isolation level, and contention is bounded to one tenant's row — which is also the fair-scheduling unit, unlike a global counter that would convoy every tenant behind one row.
State the cost you just took on: a counter is a second source of truth that can drift, so every path that changes status must adjust it inside the same transaction, and a periodic reconciliation has to exist, with resource_revision as the authority for what the count should have been.
For the job case the invariant is expressible per row, so let the database hold it: a partial unique index on job_run (tenant_id, job_type) WHERE status IN ('queued','running') makes a second running export unwritable and the loser takes 23505, mapped to 409. That is strictly better than a counter — no drift, no reconciliation — and it is available only because the cap is one rather than fifty.
Add the retry discipline each route demands: under SERIALIZABLE both 40001 and deadlock 40P01 are retryable and the retry must re-execute the read, while under READ COMMITTED with the counter nothing retries, because the conflict is reported to the caller rather than raised as an error.

Worked solution (35 min)

Reproduce with two sessions that both count 49, both insert and both commit, at READ COMMITTED and then at REPEATABLE READ; record the final active count for each.
Repeat both sessions at SERIALIZABLE and record which SQLSTATE the loser receives and at which statement it is raised.
Implement the counter form and run a 20-way concurrent create against a tenant sitting at 45 active resources.
Implement the partial unique index for the job case and race 20 enqueues of the same export.

Expected result: READ COMMITTED and REPEATABLE READ both finish at 51. SERIALIZABLE finishes at 50 with one transaction aborted at 40001 — usually at commit, though SSI may raise it at an earlier statement. The counter form finishes at exactly 50: of the twenty creates, the five that take the tenant from 45 to 50 return 201 and the remaining fifteen match zero rows and return 409, with no error raised. The job index admits one running export and rejects the rest with 23505.

Verify it yourself

count(*) WHERE status='active' never exceeds the cap across 50 randomised concurrent runs.
Remove the active_resource_count < 50 predicate and the same test must start failing; if it still passes, the race is not being exercised.
At SERIALIZABLE, confirm every participating session is SERIALIZABLE — one session at a lower level and the guarantee is gone.
After each run, the counter equals the real count of active rows.

Follow-up

A resource moves from archived back to active. Which statements change, and what breaks if the counter update and the status change land in different transactions?
The cap becomes plan-dependent and a plan can change mid-month. Where does the number 50 live, and who reads it?
How do you detect after the fact that the counter drifted, without locking the table?

Choose what to break when replication lag reaches forty seconds

Hard · replication lag · read-after-write · consistency vs availability · load shedding

Reads are served from two replicas: 14k requests/second, about 85% absorbed by cache, so roughly 2.1k reads/second reach the database. Writes go to the primary at 1.2k/second. A tenant's backfill drives replication lag from under 100 ms to 40 seconds and it is still climbing. Sessions that have just written are pinned to the primary. Decide, endpoint class by endpoint class, whether to serve stale, fail, or route to the primary, and justify each choice with the load it adds to the primary. Then state what you would have built beforehand.

Approach

Establish blast radius before cause, because mitigation and diagnosis have different deadlines. The decisive arithmetic is what happens if the database reads move to the primary: 2.1k reads/second on top of 1.2k writes/second roughly triples its operation count, on the node already absorbing the backfill that caused this. Reads and writes are not equal in cost, so treat that as an argument against a blanket move rather than as a capacity model - but it is enough to rule out routing everything to the primary.
Classify endpoints by what staleness costs, not by how important they feel. Reads whose staleness is invisible - listings, search, counters - stay on the replica and return the watermark so the client can tell. Reads that immediately follow that same session's write keep their primary pin, which is a small bounded slice of traffic rather than the whole 2.1k/second. Reads that feed a decision with a side effect - authorisation, quota, the read half of a read-modify-write - must not be stale at all, because a 40-second-old permission row is the stale-permission failure wearing a different costume; those go to the primary or fail.
Shed instead of queueing. If the must-be-fresh class alone exceeds the primary's headroom, refuse its lowest-value slice with 503 and a retry-after. A request queued behind a saturated primary holds a connection for a client that has already given up, and the retry storm that follows is what turns degradation into an outage. Bound the connection pool per role so the read fallback cannot consume the write path's connections - that bulkhead is the single decision that determines whether writes survive the next ten minutes.
Attack the cause in parallel, since it is the one thing that can be stopped. The backfill is the load generator. A backfill that reads replication lag as its throttle signal and pauses above a threshold would have made this a non-event, with batch sizes small enough that each batch's write volume is a fraction of what a replica can apply per second. That is most of the answer to what should have existed beforehand.
Name the mechanism you would prefer over session pinning. Capture the write position at commit and require the read path to be at or past it: compare the primary's pg_current_wal_lsn() at commit time against the replica's pg_last_wal_replay_lsn(), and fall back to the primary only for the specific request that is ahead of the replica. Session pinning is the cheap approximation and it over-pins - every read in the window goes to the primary whether or not it needed to, which is a share of the cost being paid right now.

Follow-up

Lag returns to normal in nine minutes. Which mitigation do you remove first, and which one stays permanently?
A user reports their change did not save, and the write committed. Trace the path that produces that report and name the signal that would have shown it before the report arrived.
The replica is 40 seconds behind but otherwise healthy. Do you take it out of rotation? What does that do to the other replica's lag?

Relay committed events to the log without gaps or reordering

Medium · transactional outbox · at-least-once · ordering · leases

outbox_event rows are written in the same transaction as the state change and carry aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, payload and status, with a partial index on (created_at, event_id) WHERE status = 'pending'. The relay publishes about 4k events/second to a partitioned append-only log keyed by aggregate_id, with one leader per partition range holding a lease. Consumers must never miss an event; they may see one twice. Design the claim-publish-mark loop, and state exactly what consumers observe when a leader's lease expires while it is mid-batch.

Approach

Claim with SELECT ... WHERE status='pending' ORDER BY created_at, event_id LIMIT $batch FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED inside a transaction. SKIP LOCKED lets several relay workers share a range without serialising on each other's rows, and the partial index keeps the claim proportional to the backlog rather than to a table that is overwhelmingly published rows. At 4k/second a batch of 500 is eight claims per second, each an index scan of 500 entries.
Publish before marking, never the reverse, and say why it is a choice. Marking first loses the event outright if the process dies in the gap, and the loss is silent - nothing remains to retry, and it surfaces later as a projection missing a row. Publishing first can repeat the event, and repetition is what every consumer is already built to survive. That single ordering is the whole at-least-once guarantee.
Preserve the only ordering on offer. Partition by aggregate_id and never publish two events for one aggregate concurrently: claim in (created_at, event_id) order and publish sequentially within an aggregate, or hash aggregate_id to a worker slot. Order across aggregates is not available at any price here, which is why the event carries aggregate_version and the full fact rather than a delta - a consumer can then discard what it has already applied without coordinating with anyone.
State the failover behaviour precisely, because it is the consistency-versus-availability decision in this design. A lease expires because the holder is slow, and no mechanism distinguishes that from dead, so for the length of the lease window two leaders can publish the same claimed batch. The system accepts duplicates to avoid stalling publication for every aggregate in the range whenever one worker pauses. Consumers deduplicate on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and drop anything at or below what they have applied.
Bound the failure paths and pick the right alarm. A row that fails to publish increments attempts, records last_error, and moves to 'dead' after a limit so one poison payload cannot block the backlog behind it. Alert on the age of the oldest pending row, not on the relay's error rate: the failure worth catching is a relay reporting itself healthy while nothing is being published.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the claim statement and check it against the partial index: which columns it seeks on, how many entries it touches, and what two concurrent workers do to each other.
Write both orderings of publish and mark, and for each state what exists after a crash at every point in the loop.
Write the consumer's dedupe rule on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and test it against a replayed batch of 500.
Compute the backlog after a 40-minute outage and the batch rate needed to drain it while 4k/second continues to arrive.

Expected result: A claim using FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED over the partial index in (created_at, event_id) order, publish to the aggregate_id partition, then mark published - in that order, accepting duplicates on lease expiry. Per-aggregate order is preserved by never publishing an aggregate concurrently; cross-aggregate order is explicitly not guaranteed. Failures increment attempts and terminate at 'dead'. The alarm is the age of the oldest pending row.

Verify it yourself

Killing the relay mid-batch produces duplicates on restart and no gap.
The claim query's plan uses the partial index and reads at most batch-size entries regardless of table size.
Two relay workers on the same range never block on each other's rows.
Events for one aggregate_id arrive in aggregate_version order, and no consumer relies on order across aggregates.

Follow-up

The relay is down 40 minutes and 9.6 million rows are pending. What does catch-up do to the primary, and what changes in the claim loop to survive it?
A consumer insists it never received an event. Which single query settles whether the relay lost it, and what does each answer look like?
Delivery is at-least-once. What would exactly-once require end to end, and why is that a property of the consumer rather than of the relay?

One customer endpoint stalls deliveries to every other destination

Medium · bulkhead · timeouts · saturation · retry amplification

The egress service delivers about 1.5k webhooks/second across 40,000 destinations, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10-second connect-plus-read timeout. Throughput falls to 300/second, queue depth climbs, and p99 delivery latency for unaffected destinations goes from 200 ms to minutes, while the error rate barely moves. One tenant holds 900 destination rows whose URLs share a hostname that now answers in 9.5 seconds. Explain the mechanism with the arithmetic, then give the containment in the order you would apply it.

Approach

Look at saturation before errors. A flat error rate with collapsing throughput says nothing is failing, things are waiting, so the first signal to pull is in-flight request count or pool wait time rather than the error counter. This is the distinction that decides the whole investigation.
Group in-flight work by resolved host, not by destination id. The cap is keyed per destination row, so 900 rows sharing one hostname buy 3,600 concurrent slots against a single host, each held for 9.5 seconds. The bulkhead was never a bulkhead for that host, and grouping by the wrong dimension is why the dashboard looked healthy.
Do the arithmetic in both directions. Required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, so 1.5k/second at 200 ms needs about 300 in flight, which is entirely consumed by 3,600 slow slots; conversely whatever concurrency is left sustains rate equals concurrency divided by 9.5 seconds, which is the 300/second you are seeing. Matching both numbers is what promotes this from a plausible story to the mechanism.
Explain why the circuit breaker never helped. It opens on consecutive failures, and a 9.5-second response inside a 10-second timeout is a success. Slow is not failing, so an error-rate breaker cannot see this; you need a slow-call ratio, a deadline propagated from the caller's remaining budget, or a concurrency limiter.
Contain in order: park the offending host so the shared pool drains, add a per-resolved-host concurrency cap alongside the per-destination one, give slow hosts their own queue so they cannot occupy the general pool, derive the timeout from the delivery deadline rather than a round number, and check the retry policy is not tripling load on a host that is already slow. Use backoff with full jitter so retries do not resynchronise on recovery.
State the invariant you are restoring: one tenant's endpoints degrade only that tenant's deliveries. That is a property to load-test for, not to assume from a config value.

Follow-up

The host recovers to 80 ms. How long does the queue take to drain, and what does the drain do to the recovered host?
Where should the 10-second timeout number actually come from?
If that tenant had one destination row instead of 900, would the cap of 4 have saved you? What would you measure to be sure?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone fluent in a dynamic language who has shipped real work but has never had to say what the runtime is doing underneath. The week is built on measuring and deliberately breaking things, because the questions that expose this background are the ones where the interviewer asks why a second time.

Day 1 — Measure before reasoning

Take a slow piece of your own code, write down in advance where you believe the time goes, then profile it and record how wrong the guess was. The cost is usually an allocation you did not notice or an accidental quadratic membership test.
Replace one list membership test inside a loop with a set and measure at a thousand, ten thousand and a hundred thousand elements, confirming the shape of the curve rather than only that it got faster.
Write down the three quantities you can now measure instead of assert: wall time, peak memory, and call count for the function you suspected.

Deliverable: A before-and-after profile of real code plus a written note on the size of the gap between the guess and the measurement.

Day 2 — References, copies, and the bugs they produce

Write the function with a mutable default argument, call it three times, and explain the accumulating result: the default is evaluated once when the function is defined, so every call shares one object.
Build a nested structure, take a shallow copy, mutate an inner element, and show that both views changed, because a shallow copy duplicates the container and not the elements. Then fix it with a deep copy and state the cost you just accepted.
Write two functions, one mutating its argument in place and one rebinding the local name, and predict the caller's view of each before running it. That single distinction produces most of the bugs that pass their tests.

Deliverable: Three small programs whose output you predicted correctly before running, each with a one-line statement of the rule underneath.

Day 3 — Types, once, in a language that checks them

Port one module you have already written, roughly a hundred lines, into a statically typed language, and record every place the compiler demanded an answer your original had left implicit: a value that can be absent, a numeric width, a case never handled.
Write the same signature in both languages and state what the static one guarantees before the program runs and what it does not, since it will not save you from a wrong algorithm or an index out of range.
Write the difference between an interface satisfied by declaration and one satisfied structurally, with one case each where the other approach would miss the mistake.

Deliverable: One module in two languages plus a list of the questions the type checker forced you to answer.

Day 4 — Concurrency, starting with what actually runs at the same time

Run the same CPU-bound function across four threads and four processes and measure both. Under the default CPython build the threaded version will not speed up, because only one thread executes bytecode at a time; the process version will. Check which build you are on first, since free-threaded builds remove that lock and change the result.
Then run a blocking I/O workload across four threads and measure it speeding up, because the interpreter releases that lock around blocking calls, which is why treating threads as useless is wrong as a general claim.
Build the lost update: two threads each incrementing a shared counter a hundred thousand times, and show a final value below the expected sum, because an increment is a load, an add and a store and the thread can be suspended between them. Fix it with a lock and then measure what the lock costs.

Deliverable: Three measurements, threads against processes on CPU work, threads on I/O work, and a demonstrated lost update, each with the mechanism written underneath.

Day 5 — Debugging as a procedure rather than an instinct

Work one real failure as a bisection: find a revision or an input size where it is good and one where it is bad, halve repeatedly, and state the two assumptions bisection needs, that the property changes exactly once across the range and that the test is reliable.
Minimise one failing input to the smallest version that still fails, and record how many rounds it took.
Keep a hypothesis log for one bug in three columns, what I believe, what would disprove it, what I observed, and stop yourself the first time you are about to change two things at once.

Deliverable: One bug worked to root cause with a written hypothesis log and a minimised reproducing input.

Day 6 — Tests that catch the bug you are about to write

Implement an LRU cache with a capacity bound, then write the three test cases that would catch an off-by-one in eviction: insert exactly capacity items and assert nothing was evicted, insert one more and assert the least recently used key is the one gone, and read an old key just before that insert so the eviction victim changes.
Add a property test comparing your implementation against a deliberately slow reference, an ordered list scanned linearly, over a few thousand random operation sequences, because a slow reference finds the cases you would not have thought to write.
Write one numeric test that fails under exact equality and passes with a tolerance, and state why the tolerance has to be relative rather than absolute once the magnitudes grow.

Deliverable: An LRU implementation with three boundary tests, one property test against a slow reference, and one tolerance-based numeric test.

Day 7 — Debug something broken, out loud

Have someone plant three defects in a two-hundred-line program, an off-by-one, a shared mutable state bug, and a wrong error-handling path, then find them while narrating, under a fixed rule: state the hypothesis before touching anything.
Time each one and record which tool found it, reading, a printed value, a debugger, or a test, because the question asked in interviews is how you would find it rather than what it was.
Write the sentence you will use when you do not yet know the cause, one that names the next measurement instead of offering a guess.

Deliverable: A recorded debugging session with time-to-find per defect and the method that found each.

The estimate and the day you knew

A slipped date is only a bad story if you sat on it. What matters is what you believed when you gave the number, the signal that told you it was wrong, how many days passed before you said so, and what you cut rather than asking for more time. Scope you defended counts as much as scope you dropped.

How do you handle imbalanced datasets in a production environment?

Medium · behavioural and collaboration

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.

Follow-up

How did you know your change caused the improvement?
What would you do differently if you ran that again?

Narrate an outage you owned from page to postmortem

Hard · incident response · blast radius · postmortems

Pick an incident you personally drove, ideally one where writes were affected rather than reads. In six to eight minutes: state the symptom as it first appeared on a dashboard, the blast radius you established before you knew the cause, the mitigation you applied and when, the mechanism you eventually proved, and the follow-up that would prevent a repeat. Bring numbers: error rate, tenants affected, minutes to mitigate, minutes to resolve. If you cannot name what you measured, choose a different incident.

Approach

Open on the signal rather than the cause: which metric at which percentile moved, on which service, at what time, so the listener follows the same evidence you had rather than a conclusion you already reached.
Separate mitigation from diagnosis out loud. State what you did to stop the bleeding (flag off, shed traffic, drain a lease, roll back a deploy) and say plainly that you did it before the mechanism was known, because those are two jobs with different deadlines.
Establish blast radius in countable terms: how many tenants, how many writes, and crucially whether the effect was loss or only delay. An append-only revision table or a pending outbox row means the change survived and the projection was merely behind, which is a repair rather than a data-loss incident.
Prove the mechanism instead of asserting it. Name the trace span that grew, the plan that flipped to a sequential scan, the lease that expired, plus one alternative you ruled out and the signal that stayed flat while you ruled it out.
Close on the durable fix and its cost, distinguishing what landed that week from what needed an expand-and-contract migration across several deploys, and say which of the two you actually finished.

Follow-up

What would you do differently in the first five minutes, given the same dashboard and no more information?
Which follow-up action did you deliberately not take, and why was dropping it the right call?
How did you convince yourself the mitigation was safe to apply while the cause was still unknown?

Estimate work you have never done and defend the range

Hard · estimation · backfills · expand-contract

You are asked to estimate a change you have never attempted: add a column to a 100-million-row table, populate it, move reads across, and drop the old shape. Give a range with the assumptions that generate it, including batch size, the signal your backfill throttles on, and wall-clock hours, and name the three unknowns that would move the number most. Then describe a real estimate you gave under comparable ignorance: how you expressed its uncertainty, what you committed to, and how wrong you turned out to be.

Approach

Decompose into independently deployable steps before estimating anything: add the column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, verify, move reads, stop writing the old shape, drop it. That is four deploys spread over days, and the calendar estimate is dominated by them rather than by the loop's runtime.
Do the arithmetic aloud for the part that has arithmetic in it: batch size times number of batches times per-batch duration, at a write rate the primary can absorb alongside roughly 1.2k writes per second of production traffic. The loop is throttled by replication lag and lock waits, not by how fast it can issue statements.
Price the schema step by its lock rather than its statement duration. In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE taking ACCESS EXCLUSIVE waits for every open transaction on that table while later queries queue behind it, so a millisecond change issued during a thirty-second analytics query stalls that table for thirty seconds. Adding a nullable column with a non-volatile default avoids a rewrite from version 11; a new index wants CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, which cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails.
Express the answer as a range whose endpoints each trace to a stated assumption, then name the cheapest experiment that collapses it, which is almost always running one real batch against the real table and multiplying.
Commit to a checkpoint rather than a completion date: the day you report a measured number from that first batch. That is a promise you can keep under uncertainty, and it is what the asker actually needs in order to plan.

Follow-up

How do you verify the backfill genuinely finished, given rows written by production traffic while it ran?
Where does the backfill resume from after a worker is killed mid-batch, and what makes that resume point trustworthy?
Your first batch comes back ten times slower than assumed. What do you tell the person waiting on the estimate, and when?