Interview guides · Descartes Underwriting

Descartes Underwriting Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist interview prep for Descartes Underwriting: original practice on experiment design, SQL and metric reasoning, with worked solutions.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Descartes Underwriting, you are at the intersection of climate science, insurance, and advanced computation. You are not merely building predictive models; you are developing parametric insurance solutions that provide rapid financial protection against extreme weather events. Your work directly impacts how the company quantifies risk for floods, storms, droughts, and other natural catastrophes, effectively bridging the gap between raw environmental data and actionable business insights.

Learn the economics of the product category before the loop. Marketplaces, subscription products and ad-supported products turn on different core quantities (match rate and liquidity, retention and churn, fill rate and yield) and fail in different characteristic ways.

Focus areas

Read vintage curves, not blended portfolio averages
Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD

Overview

The role is highly technical and demands a blend of statistical rigor, machine learning expertise, and, depending on the specific team, a solid understanding of physical phenomena like hydrodynamics or storm surge modeling. You will work within a fast-paced, intellectually demanding environment that attracts top-tier talent from prestigious engineering schools and research institutions. Success here requires the ability to distill complex, often messy real-world datasets into robust, scalable models that provide transparent and fair outcomes for clients globally.

While the title is Data Scientist, many projects lean heavily into computational science and domain-specific modeling. Be prepared to demonstrate that you can apply your technical toolkit to the physical realities of climate risk.

The Descartes Underwriting interview process

Descartes Underwriting candidates report 5 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Screening Call

A screening call is a matching exercise run by someone who will not evaluate your statistics. They are checking that the work described on your resume is work you personally did, and that its scope matches the level the role is written for. Logistics get settled in the same half hour so nobody spends an interviewer's afternoon on a mismatch. The answer that fails is the one narrated in the plural. If every sentence is 'we built' and 'the team decided', there is nothing specific to write down about you. Name the piece that was yours, the decision you made inside it, and what changed after.

What to demonstrate

Whether the ownership implied by your resume survives one round of follow-up about who actually did which part
Whether your described scope (data size, stakeholders, what shipped) matches the seniority the role is written at
Whether timeline, location and compensation expectations make the rest of the loop worth scheduling

How to prepare

Rewrite your top three resume bullets in the first person singular, each with the decision you made and what moved afterwards, then say them out loud once so the 'we' does not return under pressure
Attach one number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where impact was never measured, say that plainly rather than inventing a figure
Settle your compensation range before the call and give it as a range with a reason behind it, such as current total comp or a competing timeline, instead of deflecting the question twice

Technical Phase

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows

Technical Deep-Dive

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

Team Integration

An extra round usually exists because something is still open after the standard loop: a skill the earlier interviews did not sample, a level decision, or two interviewers who disagreed. It is rarely a rerun of what you already did well. Ask the recruiter who you are meeting, what function they sit in, and how long the session runs. That is an ordinary scheduling question, and the answer changes what you should prepare. What separates a strong candidate here is treating the round as a fresh evaluation with its own bar, rather than assuming earlier performance carries you through or sinks you.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can answer well on ground the earlier rounds did not cover, without leaning on what you already said to someone else
Consistency of the facts in your stories: the same sample size, timeframe, team size and scope of your own role as in earlier conversations
How you handle an unfamiliar format live, including whether you ask what kind of answer is wanted before producing one

How to prepare

Ask the recruiter for the interviewer's function, the length, and whether to expect a coding surface, a discussion, or a presentation. Preparing for a 30 minute conversation with a partner team is not the same work as preparing for a 60 minute technical block.
Write out what each earlier round actually covered, then list the two or three areas nobody probed. That gap is the most likely subject of the extra round.
Re-read the numbers in the project stories you have already told, so a second telling does not quietly contradict the first.

Behavioral Fit

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

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.

Using written premium as the denominator of a loss ratio

Premium is written at inception and earned pro rata across the exposure period, so in a growing book written premium runs ahead of earned premium and the loss ratio comes out too low, with the error reversing when the book shrinks. The numerator has the mirror-image problem if it omits incurred-but-not-reported reserves, since recent accident periods then look profitable twice over. Both sides must refer to the same exposure period, which is what an accident-period view at a fixed development age enforces.

Answering a product-sense question with a list of features

Answer with a decision and the measurement that would settle it: the hypothesis, the primary metric, the guardrails, and the result that would make you not ship. A feature brainstorm cannot be wrong, which is exactly why it earns no points.

Averaging per-user rates to produce a population rate

Decide which quantity you want: the mean of per-user ratios and the ratio of summed numerator to summed denominator are different estimands, and heavy users dominate one but not the other. For a ratio metric, aggregate numerator and denominator separately and use the delta method for its variance.

Questions & practice

Given a dataset on historical flood events, how would you build a model to predict the probability of a future event in a specific region?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Walk us through the trade-offs you considered when choosing between different classification algorithms for this specific problem.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.

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?

How do you approach feature engineering for a climate-related dataset where the underlying physical process is known?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.

Follow-up

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

Write integrity checks for the authorization and settlement lifecycle

Easy · data quality · minor units · fx reconciliation

You are given fct_payment_authorization as a pandas DataFrame with auth_id, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency and settlement_fx_rate. Write a function returning one row per integrity check with the check name, failing row count, failing share and up to five example auth_id values. Cover at least six checks, one of which reconciles captured_amount_minor against settlement_amount_minor through settlement_fx_rate. Partial capture, zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture are all legitimate and must not be flagged.

Approach

Separate contract violations from observations before writing any code: an approved row carrying a decline_reason_code is structurally impossible, while a capture two days after requested_at is merely slow and belongs in a different severity tier.
Express each check as a boolean mask over the whole frame and collect the masks in a dict, so the summary table is one comprehension over mask.sum() rather than a row loop.
For the reconciliation, leave minor units before comparing: expected = captured_amount_minor / 10exponent[transaction_currency] * settlement_fx_rate * 10exponent[settlement_currency]. Build the exponent table covering zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies instead of assuming two everywhere.
Guard the legitimate cases explicitly so each mask fires only on the genuine contradiction: captured_amount_minor below amount_minor is partial capture, amount_minor of zero on an approved row is account verification, a null captured_at on a declined row is correct.
Sort the output by failing share times a stated severity weight, because a check firing on 0.01 percent of rows can still be the one that breaks a ledger reconciliation.

Worked solution (25 min)

Assert auth_id is unique, then build a currency exponent lookup that includes the zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies present in the data.
Define masks for: approved with non-null decline_reason_code; declined with non-null captured_at; captured_amount_minor above amount_minor with parent_auth_id null; captured_at before requested_at; settled_at before captured_at; is_reversal true with parent_auth_id null; settlement_currency differing from transaction_currency while settlement_fx_rate is null.
Add the exponent-aware reconciliation mask with a tolerance of one minor unit plus a small relative term.
Assemble a frame of check_name, n_failing, pct_failing and up to five sample auth_id values, ordered by severity then share.
Read five flagged rows per check by hand and confirm each is genuinely contradictory before reporting any counts.

Expected result: A DataFrame of at least eight rows, one per check, each with n_failing, pct_failing and example auth_id values. The reconciliation check should fire on a whole currency at once rather than on scattered rows, because an exponent error is systematic while an FX error is not.

Verify it yourself

Every mask returns false on three hand-constructed legitimate rows: a partial capture, a zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture.
Each pct_failing uses the denominator that check actually applies to, with reversals and verifications excluded where they are out of scope.
The reconciliation residual is centred at zero with spread under one minor unit; residuals clustered at exactly 100x or 0.01x mean an exponent is wrong, not a rate.

Follow-up

Which of these would you run as a blocking pipeline assertion and which as a monitored metric, and why?
The FX check fails on 3 percent of rows, all in one settlement currency. How do you decide between a data bug and a rounding convention?
How would you detect that a currency's minor-unit exponent is wrong in your reference table, using only the transaction data?

Count-weighted and dollar-weighted approval rates on one currency

Easy · aggregation · denominators · minor units

Using fct_payment_authorization, report the trailing 7-day authorization approval rate two ways for transaction_currency = 'EUR': count-weighted, and dollar-weighted on amount_minor. Exclude is_reversal = true, exclude incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null), and exclude zero-amount account verifications. auth_result = 'approved' is the numerator; the four declined_* values make up the rest of the denominator. Return channel, attempts, approved_attempts, approval_rate_count and approval_rate_value. State every exclusion and its reason before you write the SELECT.

Approach

Say the denominator out loud first: attempts on a single transaction currency, excluding reversals, incremental authorizations and zero-amount verifications, because none of those is a purchase attempt a merchant is trying to get approved.
Filter requested_at against a half-open interval (>= start AND < end) so the boundary day is neither dropped nor double counted.
Compute both rates in one pass with FILTER clauses: COUNT() FILTER (WHERE auth_result = 'approved') over COUNT(), and SUM(amount_minor) FILTER (WHERE auth_result = 'approved') over SUM(amount_minor).
Cast one side of each ratio to numeric before dividing, since amount_minor and the counts are integers and integer division silently truncates to zero.
Group by channel and sort by the value-weighted rate, then read the gap between the two rates as a statement about where the declines sit rather than as noise.

Follow-up

The two rates diverge by four points on the ecommerce channel but agree on card_present. What does that tell you, and what would you cut next?
How would you extend this to all currencies without summing amount_minor across them?
Which of the four decline reasons belong in the denominator of a rate you would put in front of a risk team, and which are really the network's problem?

Reconcile captured authorizations against the daily settlement total

Easy · reconciliation · currency · rounding

fct_payment_authorization holds captured_amount_minor in transaction_currency, and settlement_amount_minor in settlement_currency with settlement_fx_rate applied at settlement rather than at authorization. The rate is quoted in major units of settlement_currency per major unit of transaction_currency, and dim_currency.minor_unit_exponent carries the ISO 4217 exponent for each code (0, 2 or 3 depending on the currency). Produce a daily reconciliation: for each settled_at date and settlement_currency, return settled_count, total settlement_amount_minor, and the sum of captured_amount_minor converted into settlement minor units. Flag any date and currency pair whose two totals differ by more than one minor unit per settled authorization. Do not sum amounts across currencies anywhere in the output.

Approach

Restrict to rows that actually settled: settled_at is not null and settlement_amount_minor is not null, which is a smaller population than captured rows because a capture can still be in flight.
Truncate settled_at to a date with an explicit time zone so the cut matches the ledger's cut, since settled_at is timestamptz and date_trunc on timestamptz silently uses the session time zone.
Join dim_currency twice, once on transaction_currency and once on settlement_currency, so both exponents are on the row. Minor units are not a common scale: a bare captured_amount_minor * settlement_fx_rate is correct only when the two exponents are equal, and a zero-decimal currency settling into a two-decimal one is wrong by a factor of 100.
Convert per row as ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric / POWER(10::numeric, exp_txn) * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle)) — minor units to major in the transaction currency, apply the major-per-major rate, then back to minor units in the settlement currency. The collapsed form ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle - exp_txn)) is the same expression. Round per row and then sum, not SUM(...) * an average rate, because the rate varies row by row and rounding per row is what the settlement file did.
Group by the settlement date and settlement_currency together, never by date alone, and carry the currency into every output column name or row.
Compare the two totals with a tolerance scaled by settled_count, since per-row rounding accumulates linearly in the number of rows rather than being a fixed constant.

Worked solution (25 min)

Filter to settled rows and derive settlement_date from settled_at with an explicit time zone.
Join dim_currency on transaction_currency and again on settlement_currency to pick up exp_txn and exp_settle; fail the run if either is null rather than defaulting to 2.
Aggregate by settlement_date and settlement_currency: COUNT(*), SUM(settlement_amount_minor), and SUM(ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric / POWER(10::numeric, exp_txn) * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle))).
Add a derived difference column and a boolean flag where ABS(difference) > settled_count.
Order by the flag first and then by settlement_date so the exceptions surface at the top.

Expected result: One row per settlement_date and settlement_currency, carrying settled_count, settlement_total_minor, converted_capture_total_minor, their signed difference, and a boolean exception flag. On clean days the difference is small relative to settled_count and has no consistent sign. Pairs with unequal exponents reconcile exactly as well as equal-exponent pairs; if they do not, the exponent terms are missing rather than the FX rate being wrong.

Verify it yourself

The difference divided by settled_count stays well under one minor unit on unflagged days, which is the expected size of per-row rounding.
Restricted to rows where exp_txn = exp_settle, the exponent-aware conversion and a bare captured_amount_minor * settlement_fx_rate agree exactly; restricted to rows where the exponents differ by 2, the bare form is smaller by exactly a factor of 100. That is the direct test that the dim_currency join is load-bearing.
Re-running with SUM over all currencies at once produces a number that changes when a zero-decimal currency's volume moves, which demonstrates why the cross-currency total is meaningless.
settled_count summed over all dates equals COUNT(*) on the same settled-row filter with no grouping.

Follow-up

A partial capture means captured_amount_minor is less than amount_minor. Where does that show up in this reconciliation, and where does it not?
On one currency pair the converted total is consistently about one hundredth of the settlement total, on every date, while the other pairs reconcile. Which two columns do you inspect first, and what single change fixes it?
The rate is documented as major-per-major. If a feed started publishing it minor-per-minor instead, which pairs would still reconcile and which would break?
How would you present a total across currencies to a finance partner who has asked for one number?

How would you structure a pipeline to process large-scale satellite imagery or sensor data for risk assessment?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you design a system to detect outliers in environmental sensor data?

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

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

Explain the difference between various interpolation methods and when you would use each.

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

Judge a rate increase without letting price flatter the ratio

Hard · mix shift · adverse selection · loss development

A rating change raises premium on one product_line's renewal book. Using fct_policy_period_monthly (earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor, exposure_units, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor, loss_adjustment_expense_minor, rating_tier, policy_status, renewal_flag, policy_term_end), the accident-period loss ratio improves two points over the following year. Explain why that number alone cannot tell you the change worked, decompose the movement into the effects you would separate, and specify the primary metric and guardrails you would commit to before the next rating change.

Approach

Start with the arithmetic. A rate increase raises earned premium per exposure unit, so the loss ratio falls even if every policyholder behaves identically and every claim is unchanged. Part of the two points is mechanical and carries no information about risk at all.
Switch the risk measure to one price cannot move: pure premium, being incurred losses (paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor, with loss_adjustment_expense_minor included or excluded consistently and the choice stated) divided by exposure_units, evaluated by accident period at a fixed development age. Flat pure premium alongside an improved loss ratio means the improvement was entirely price.
Decompose the loss ratio movement into three named components: the price effect at constant exposure and mix, the mix effect from which rating_tiers renewed and which lapsed, and the residual change in pure premium within tier. Only the third is evidence about risk selection, and it is usually the smallest.
Name the adverse-selection risk directly. Price sensitivity and loss propensity are not independent, and the policyholders most able to leave after a rate rise are often the ones worth keeping. Retention by rating_tier is therefore a guardrail with teeth, and it has to be read at tier level because a flat blended retention hides tiers moving in opposite directions.
Add prior-period reserve development as the second guardrail. The same two points are producible by setting case reserves or IBNR light, which surfaces only later as adverse development, so the reserve guardrail is what stops the primary metric being satisfiable by an accounting choice.
Commit the primary before the next change: underwriting margin per exposure unit, being earned premium minus incurred losses minus loss adjustment expense minus allocated expense, over exposure_units, at a fixed development age, reported by accident period and by rating_tier with exposure volume printed beside it so that improving margin by shrinking the book is visible in the same table.

Worked solution (40 min)

By accident quarter at a fixed twelve-month development age, compute both the loss ratio (incurred over earned_premium_minor) and the pure premium (incurred over exposure_units), before and after the change.
Build the three-way decomposition: move price only at constant mix and exposure, then move the tier mix to the post-change distribution at constant price, then take the remainder as the within-tier pure premium change.
Compute renewal retention by rating_tier from policies reaching policy_term_end, excluding cancelled_midterm and terms where no renewal offer was made, and cross each tier's retention with its prior pure premium.
Pull prior-period reserve development for the periods used and state whether the improvement survives it.

Expected result: A decomposition splitting the two-point improvement into price, mix and within-tier pure premium components that reconcile to the total, alongside retention by rating_tier and an explicit statement of whether the within-tier component is distinguishable from zero.

Verify it yourself

The three components reconcile to the observed change up to the interaction term. Decide in advance where the interaction is allocated and say so on the chart.
Pure premium contains no price term by construction, so a step change in it exactly at the rate effective date points to an exposure or earning-pattern error rather than to a risk effect.
Recent accident periods have no value at the fixed development age, which means unavailable rather than favourable, so any period younger than that age is excluded from the comparison.
Retention measured at tier level reconciles to the blended figure once terms with no renewal offer are excluded from both.

Follow-up

Retention is flat overall but fell nine points in the lowest-loss tier. What do you expect next year's pure premium to do?
Why not use written premium as the denominator, and where would you still legitimately see it used?
How would you separate a genuine underwriting improvement from a year of mild weather?

Portfolio delinquency improving while the loan book doubles

Easy · vintage analysis · age mix · right censoring

The blended 90-plus days-past-due rate across fct_loan_performance_monthly fell from 3.1 to 2.2 percent over two quarters while monthly funded volume roughly doubled. Credit leadership wants to know whether underwriting improved. Columns: loan_id, as_of_month_end, origination_month, months_on_book, original_principal_minor, principal_balance_minor, days_past_due, delinquency_bucket, restructured_flag, charge_off_flag, charge_off_date. Produce the view that answers the question honestly, and state in one sentence what the blended rate can and cannot tell you.

Approach

Name the mechanical floor first. A first instalment falls due roughly a month after funding, so a loan cannot reach dpd_90_plus until around its fourth month on book. Every recent origination therefore enters the denominator with a numerator that is structurally zero.
Build a vintage table: rows origination_month, columns months_on_book, cell equal to the share of that cohort whose worst days_past_due reached 90 or more, or whose charge_off_flag became true, at or before that age.
Use each loan's worst state to date rather than its current bucket, and take the pre-restructure worst state, because restructuring resets days_past_due and would otherwise read as a cure.
Compare cohorts only at equal months_on_book, and render cells beyond a cohort's current maturity as absent rather than zero, so the table cannot be misread left to right.
Decompose the blended move into an age-mix component and a within-age component, so the write-up states how much of the 0.9 point improvement is arithmetic rather than asserting it.

Follow-up

What does the diagonal of a vintage table represent, and when is reading it the right thing to do?
How would a change in charge-off timing policy show up in this table, and how would you separate it from credit quality?
Which single chart goes in front of the credit committee, and what do you say when someone asks for the blended series anyway?

Suggested practice checklist

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

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

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

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

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

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

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

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

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

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

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

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

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

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

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

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

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

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

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

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

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

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

Where your data came from

Data people depend on systems owned by other teams, and much of the job is negotiating for instrumentation, access, or a fix to a broken pipeline. Prepare an example of getting something changed upstream that you did not control. Describe what you asked for, what you traded, and how you worked while you waited.

Why do you want to apply your data science skills to the insurance and climate change sector?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
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

What did you decide not to do, and why?
What would you do differently if you ran that project again?

Can you walk us through a time you had to explain a complex model output to a non-technical stakeholder?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?