Doma Technology Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Doma Technology, you sit at the intersection of complex data engineering and product strategy. The role is pivotal in transforming how the company approaches real estate and title insurance through machine learning and advanced analytics. You are not just building models; you are defining the metrics that drive product performance and business efficiency.

When randomisation is off the table, the skill being checked is naming an identification strategy together with the assumption it rests on: parallel trends for difference-in-differences, relevance and exclusion for an instrument, overlap and conditional ignorability for matching. Say the assumption out loud and say how you would try to break it.

Focus areas

• Separate contracted seats from actively used seats
• Read NRR on a fixed account cohort
• Analyse at the account grain, cluster errors

Overview

Your work will directly influence how Doma Technology automates workflows and improves the user experience. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams to identify friction points, design experiments to test new features, and provide the technical rigor necessary to turn raw data into actionable business insights. This position is ideal for someone who thrives on solving ambiguous problems and is comfortable advocating for data-driven decisions in a fast-paced environment.

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

Randomising an experiment at the user level when users share an account

Two problems fire at once. Colleagues in one workspace see each other's work and talk to each other, so a treated user changes the behaviour of a control user in the same account, which violates the no-interference assumption and biases the estimate toward zero. Separately, outcomes within an account are strongly correlated, so the effective sample size is roughly n / (1 + (m - 1) * rho) for m users per account and intra-class correlation rho, not n. With rho around 0.3 and twenty users per account that is a design effect near 6.7, meaning a user-level confidence interval is about two and a half times narrower than it should be and results cross significance thresholds on noise alone. Randomise the account and cluster the standard errors.

Comparing accounts that received a sales or customer-success touch against those that did not

Assignment of coverage is deliberate and pulls in both directions at once: the largest accounts get a named owner because they are valuable, and the accounts showing distress get one because they are at risk. The comparison therefore mixes a strong positive selection with a strong negative one, and the naive estimate can come out with either sign depending on which assignment rule dominated during the period examined. Nothing about matching on observed size fixes this, because the risk signal that triggered coverage is usually the same signal that predicts the outcome. It needs either an actual randomised or staggered rollout of coverage, or a design built on a capacity constraint or territory boundary that assigns coverage for reasons unrelated to account health.

Sizing estimates built on unnamed, unrevisable assumptions

Write each assumption as a named number you can change, then show the arithmetic so the interviewer can challenge one input instead of the whole answer. Finish by saying which assumption the result is most sensitive to, which matters more than the point estimate.

Extrapolating a first-week lift inflated by novelty effects

Plot the treatment effect by days since first exposure instead of quoting one pooled average. A lift that decays toward zero across the test window is behaviour that will not persist, and annualising it produces a forecast that misses by an order of magnitude.

Questions & practice

Join daily usage to the contract version live that day

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

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Audit daily usage rows for grain and arithmetic violations

Easy · data-quality · pandas · grain

You are handed fct_usage_daily as a pandas DataFrame with account_id, workspace_id, sku_code, usage_date, billable_quantity, included_quantity_applied, overage_quantity, list_amount_cents, discount_amount_cents, net_amount_cents, cogs_cents, is_restated, first_written_at and restated_at. The declared grain is one row per (account_id, workspace_id, sku_code, usage_date). Write audit(df) returning a DataFrame with one row per failing check: check name, failing row count, and one example key. Cover at minimum grain duplication, negative quantities or amounts, the identity net = list - discount, billable = included + overage, and rows where is_restated is true but restated_at is null.

Approach

1. Check the grain before anything else with df.duplicated(subset=key, keep=False), and count rows rather than groups so a key appearing twice contributes 2 — if the grain is broken every arithmetic count below it is uninterpretable.
2. Express each invariant as a boolean Series over the whole frame. The cent columns are integers and compare exactly, so use !=; the numeric(18,6) quantity columns need np.isclose with atol=1e-6 because included + overage is a decimal sum.
3. Handle null as its own failure mode. Comparisons against NaN return False, so a check written as rows_that_pass = (a == b - c) silently files every null-amount row wherever the negation happens to land; build each check as violations = ~condition | column.isna().
4. Collect the checks as a list of (name, mask) pairs and assemble the output in one pass, so adding a check is one line and every check reports in the same shape.
5. Order the output with structural failures (grain, null keys) above arithmetic failures, and report zero-count checks too — a check that silently disappears when it passes is indistinguishable from a check that was never run.

Follow-up

• Which of these should block a dashboard refresh and which should only warn?
• Rows with is_restated = true legitimately change value after first write. How do you make yesterday's audit result reproducible?
• How would you extend this to catch a partition that is missing entirely rather than wrong?

Implement seven-day activation rate from its written definition

Easy · metrics · pandas · activation

Given dim_account (account_id, created_at, is_internal, is_current) and fct_api_request (account_id, request_at, http_status, api_key_id, traffic_class), implement activation_rate(accounts, requests, week_start). Definition: the numerator is accounts whose first request with http_status < 400, api_key_id not null and traffic_class != 'synthetic_monitor' occurs no later than 168 hours after created_at; the denominator is non-internal accounts created during the ISO week starting week_start. All timestamps are tz-aware UTC. Return the rate and both counts, and refuse to report a week until every account in it has had its full 168 hours.

Approach

1. Reduce dim_account to one row per account_id before joining anything. It is a type 2 dimension, so several versions of the same account exist; joining the versioned table to requests multiplies the denominator by the number of plan changes an account happened to make.
2. Build the denominator first and freeze it: is_internal == False and week_start <= created_at < week_start + 7 days. Everything after this is a filter on the numerator only, because an account that never sent a request must still sit in the bottom of the fraction.
3. Filter requests to qualifying rows and only then take groupby('account_id').request_at.min(). The first qualifying request is not the same object as the global first request filtered afterwards, and the two answers differ for every account whose first call was a 4xx.
4. Left-join the first qualifying timestamp onto the cohort and test (first_ok - created_at) <= Timedelta(hours=168). NaT propagates to False in that comparison, which is the behaviour you want, but assert it rather than assume it.
5. Guard reportability explicitly: if week_start + 7 days + 168 hours exceeds the maximum request_at in the data, the week is censored and will read as a drop, so return None or raise rather than emit a number.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. cohort = accounts.loc[~accounts.is_internal & accounts.created_at.between(week_start, week_start + pd.Timedelta(days=7), inclusive='left'), ['account_id','created_at']].drop_duplicates('account_id')
2. ok = requests[(requests.http_status < 400) & requests.api_key_id.notna() & (requests.traffic_class != 'synthetic_monitor')]
3. first_ok = ok.groupby('account_id', as_index=False).request_at.min(); m = cohort.merge(first_ok, on='account_id', how='left'); assert len(m) == len(cohort)
4. activated = (m.request_at - m.created_at) <= pd.Timedelta(hours=168); return {'rate': float(activated.mean()), 'numerator': int(activated.sum()), 'denominator': len(m)}

Expected result: A dict whose denominator is the count of distinct non-internal accounts created in that ISO week, numerator <= denominator, and rate = numerator / denominator; accounts with no qualifying request sit in the denominator with NaT and evaluate to False.

Verify it yourself

• len(m) == cohort.account_id.nunique(); the merge must not add rows.
• Dropping the synthetic_monitor filter can only raise the numerator, never lower it.
• Widening the window from 168h to 336h is monotone: the numerator must not decrease.
• An account whose only qualifying request falls at exactly created_at + 168h counts as activated, since the comparison is inclusive.

Follow-up

• Median time-to-first-call is more informative. What breaks if you take the median over activated accounts only, and what estimator fixes it?
• How would you decide whether 168 hours is the right window rather than 72 or 336?
• An account signs up, does nothing for 20 days, then integrates heavily. Where does it land in this metric, and is that what you want?

Using SQL window functions, how would you calculate a rolling 7-day average of user activity?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
2. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
3. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

• How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
• How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

Consecutive qualifying weeks before renewal, as a ranked worklist

Hard · gaps and islands · window functions · date boundaries

fct_api_request carries account_id, workspace_id, environment, request_at (timestamptz), http_status and traffic_class. fct_subscription_period carries account_id, term_end_date, auto_renew and is_current. A qualifying week for an account is an ISO week with at least 50 successful production requests in traffic_class ('interactive','batch'). Over the last 52 whole ISO weeks, and for accounts whose current term ends within 90 days, return the current qualifying-week streak length, the week it began, and the longest earlier streak. An account whose streak has broken must appear with a current length of zero.

Approach

1. Bucket weeks as date_trunc('week', request_at AT TIME ZONE 'UTC'). request_at is a timestamptz, so an unpinned date_trunc silently uses the session time zone, weeks start at a local midnight, and Monday-morning traffic lands in the previous week for part of the fleet. Pinning UTC also makes the seven-day arithmetic below exact across daylight-saving transitions.
2. Apply the exclusions before counting: environment = 'production', http_status < 400, traffic_class IN ('interactive','batch'). Then apply the volume floor and drop the current partial week, which can never meet a floor calibrated on whole weeks.
3. Build islands with the row-number anchor: ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY week_start) as rn, then week_start - rn * interval '7 days' is constant inside a run of consecutive weeks. Group by that anchor to get each streak's start, end and length.
4. The current streak is the island whose end equals the last whole week; if none does, the account's current streak is zero and that is the interesting case. The longest earlier streak is the maximum length among the remaining islands.
5. Join the renewal filter from the current subscription row and LEFT JOIN the streak summary so an account with no qualifying week at all still appears, rather than vanishing from the risk list precisely because it went quiet.
6. Finish with an operating point. The list is worked by a team with finite capacity, so order it and cut it at that capacity, and say what happens to the accounts below the line.

Worked solution (40 min)

1. Build weekly_qualified: filter the fact on environment, status and traffic_class, group by account_id and date_trunc('week', request_at AT TIME ZONE 'UTC'), keep groups with count(*) >= 50, and exclude the in-progress week and anything older than 52 whole weeks.
2. Add rn = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY week_start) and anchor = week_start - rn * interval '7 days'.
3. Group by (account_id, anchor) to get streak_start = min(week_start), streak_end = max(week_start), streak_len = count(*).
4. Per account, take current_len as the streak_len where streak_end = the last whole week else 0, current_start from the same island, and longest_prior as max(streak_len) over the other islands.
5. Join to fct_subscription_period on is_current with term_end_date <= current_date + 90, LEFT JOIN the streak summary, and order by current_len ascending then term_end_date ascending.

Expected result: One row per renewal-eligible account with current_streak_weeks, current_streak_start_week and longest_prior_streak_weeks, where an account with no qualifying week in the last whole week returns current_streak_weeks = 0 and still appears, ordered so the quietest imminent renewals sit at the top.

Verify it yourself

• Per account, the sum of all island lengths equals the count of qualifying weeks for that account.
• current_streak_weeks > 0 if and only if the last whole week is a qualifying week for that account.
• No island contains a gap: re-deriving consecutive differences inside an island returns exactly 7 days everywhere.
• An account qualifying in all 52 weeks returns a single island of length 52 and a null-free current streak start.

Follow-up

• The floor of 50 requests was picked for this exercise. How would you calibrate it from data, and what would force a recalibration?
• A regional holiday week drops several accounts below the floor at once. How do you keep that out of the risk list?
• How would you evaluate whether contacting these accounts actually changed renewal, given that coverage is assigned deliberately?

How do you balance trade-offs between short-term engagement metrics and long-term product quality?

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. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
3. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

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

How would you design a metric to measure the success of a new automated document processing feature?

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. Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
3. 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?
• How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

We noticed a significant drop in our core conversion metric over the last week; what steps would you take to diagnose the root cause?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
2. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
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?
• Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?

Build an activation metric tree for a self-serve onboarding rebuild

Easy · metric tree · activation · cohort windows · denominators

The self-serve signup flow is being rebuilt. You have dim_account (account_id, created_at, is_internal, first_workspace_at, is_current) and fct_api_request (account_id, workspace_id, environment, api_key_id, http_status, traffic_class, request_at). Build a three-layer metric tree from signup through to production dependency, name the primary metric for this specific change, and state the fixed measurement window and the denominator for each layer. Two of the three layers share a denominator and the third does not, so say which invariant still holds across the tree once the denominators differ. Say which layer the onboarding team can actually move and which it cannot, and why raw signup counts are not on the tree.

Approach

1. Fix the cohort once: accounts created in cohort period P with is_internal = false, collapsed to one row per account_id since dim_account is type 2. Say out loud that employee, demo and load-test accounts are removed, otherwise the tree partly measures internal testing.
2. Layer one, qualified signup, on the cohort denominator: accounts recording at least one successful request (http_status < 400) with traffic_class in ('interactive','batch') within 14 days of created_at. This replaces raw signup counts, which measure registration-form friction and duplicate sign-ups from one organisation rather than demand.
3. Layer two, activation, also on the cohort denominator: the share of the cohort whose first successful request with a non-null api_key_id arrives within a fixed 168 hours of created_at. Fixed window, not trailing, so that cohort weeks are directly comparable and no cohort is censored.
4. Layer three, production depth, on a conditional denominator: the share of activated accounts holding a workspace with environment = 'production' whose trailing 7-day count of successful non-synthetic requests exceeds a floor calibrated from the data, for example the volume above which 90-day retention stops rising. A floor picked by intuition makes this a metric about the floor. Conditioning on activation is the right operational choice, because the question it answers is whether accounts that got started go on to depend on the product, but it means this rate is not on the same scale as the two above it: a conditional rate of 0.50 sits perfectly happily underneath a 0.30 activation rate. To place it back on the funnel, multiply it by the activation rate and report that product as the cohort share.
5. Align the traffic_class filter across all three layers, otherwise the underlying account sets do not nest: an activation definition that admits traffic_class = 'ci' will count accounts that layer one excluded, and the tree stops being a funnel. With mixed denominators the invariant that survives is on account sets and therefore on counts, not on rates. Then name the primary metric for this change, the seven-day activation rate, because the onboarding flow controls the path to first successful call and nothing below it. Production depth is the lagging check that the activation gain was real rather than one sample request.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Build the cohort table: one row per account_id, bucketed by the ISO week of created_at, is_internal = false, dim_account collapsed to is_current = true.
2. For each layer, find the first qualifying request per account from fct_api_request under that layer's filter and keep min(request_at), using EXISTS or a lateral so the cohort stays at one row per account.
3. Compute layers one and two as shares of the cohort denominator and layer three as a share of the activated accounts, carrying the raw account count beside every rate, and mark any cohort week not yet clear of the longest window (14 days) as not reportable.
4. Plot the three rates by cohort week, and separately confirm nesting on the counts within each cohort.

Expected result: A three-row tree with explicit numerator filters, fixed windows of 14 days, 168 hours and trailing 7 days, and a stated denominator per layer: layers one and two share the signup-cohort denominator of non-internal accounts, while layer three is conditional on activation and is therefore a rate that cannot be read on the same scale as the two above it. The primary metric is the seven-day activation rate, with qualified signup above it and production-depth adoption below. Cohort weeks inside the longest window are marked not yet reportable, the traffic_class filter is stated to be identical across layers so the account sets nest, and the cohort share of production depth is reported as the activation rate multiplied by the conditional rate.

Verify it yourself

• Check nesting on account counts, not on rates: within a cohort the production-depth account set must be a subset of the activated set, which must be a subset of the qualified-signup set. The rates do not obey that ordering, because layer three is conditional on activation, so a conditional rate of 0.50 sitting above a 0.30 activation rate is correct rather than a defect.
• The reported cohort share of production-depth accounts must equal the activation rate multiplied by the conditional production-depth rate; a mismatch means the two layers were computed over different cohort definitions or different traffic filters.
• Every reported cohort week must be at least 14 days old at query time.
• Removing the is_internal filter should visibly change the denominator; if it does not, the flag is not populated and the whole tree rests on an untested assumption.

Follow-up

• Activation rises 6 points and the production-depth rate among activated accounts is flat 60 days later. Say what happened to the cohort share of production-depth accounts, and why a flat conditional rate is the better of the two readings available here.
• Median time-to-first-successful-call answers the same question with more information. Why is it a worse weekly dashboard metric, and what estimator would make it honest?

Monthly logo churn triples with no change in satisfaction

Hard · renewal-eligible base · censoring · timestamp semantics

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who can already write the query and train the model but stalls when asked what to measure or whether a change is worth making. Metric definition and case structure come first; the technical work is kept as maintenance rather than the centre of the week.

Day 1 — Metric anatomy

• For three products you use daily, write one primary metric, two input metrics that plausibly move it, and one guardrail that would catch a cheap way of moving the primary at the cost of the product.
• For one of them, specify the metric precisely enough that two analysts would return the same number: numerator, denominator, unit of observation, time window, and how returning and deleted accounts are treated.
• Pick a ratio metric and write what happens to it when the denominator shrinks for reasons unrelated to the numerator, with a concrete example of that happening.

Deliverable: A one-page metric tree for one product, with the primary metric written as an unambiguous spec.

Day 2 — Diagnosing a drop without guessing

• Take the prompt "weekly active users fell 8 percent week over week" and write the segmentation plan before proposing any cause: platform, region, tenure cohort, acquisition channel, and whether the movement sits in the numerator or in a changed denominator.
• List the instrumentation failures that manufacture fake drops (a client release that stopped firing an event, a bot filter change, a shifted date boundary or timezone) and write the query that rules out each one.
• Rehearse stating the boring explanations first, seasonality and day-of-week composition, before reaching for a product cause.

Deliverable: A drop-diagnosis checklist short enough to recite from memory in under a minute.

Day 3 — Should we build it

• Take a feature idea and write it as a bet: what you believe is true, what would have to be true for it to pay off, the metric that would confirm it, and the effect size that would justify the engineering cost.
• Size the opportunity top-down and bottom-up, then reconcile the two numbers in writing instead of quoting whichever is friendlier.
• Write the counter-metric that would make you kill the feature even if it wins on the primary metric.

Deliverable: A one-page product memo ending in a decision rather than a list of considerations.

Day 4 — The places aggregate numbers lie

• Construct a Simpson's paradox numerically: two segments where the treatment wins within each segment yet loses overall, and identify the shift in segment weights that causes it.
• Take a heavy right-tailed quantity such as revenue per user and write why the mean is the wrong summary, which percentile you would report instead, and what a moving mean with a stable median tells you.
• Write your definition of a session for the product from day one, then name two real behaviours it misclassifies.

Deliverable: One page holding a worked Simpson's paradox table and a session definition with its two known failure cases.

Day 5 — Technical maintenance, aimed at metrics

• Solve four timed SQL prompts that all end in a ratio metric, so the question of grain stays live in every answer.
• Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a proportion on a small sample, and state why the normal approximation is unreliable when either np or n(1 minus p) falls below roughly 10, along with which interval you would use instead.
• Take one metric from your day-one tree, write the query that computes it correctly, then write the query that computes it wrong in the most plausible way and explain how you would notice.

Deliverable: Four solved prompts plus a matched correct and plausible-wrong query for one metric.

Day 6 — Turning engineering work into data science stories

• Write three project stories as situation, decision, trade-off, outcome, each carrying one number and one thing you got wrong.
• For the story you will lead with, prepare an answer to "what would you do differently" that names a decision you made, not a constraint you were handed.
• Practise the sentence that reframes a systems project as a question project: the question the work answered, ahead of the pipeline it shipped.

Deliverable: Three written stories with the lead story delivered aloud and timed under four minutes.

Day 7 — Mock case and gap list

• Run a 40-minute mock case with someone playing a product manager who pushes back on your metric choice, and record it.
• Listen back and mark every moment you proposed a solution before the success metric existed.
• Rewrite those moments as the question you should have asked, and rehearse the first 90 seconds of the case until scoping comes before solving.

Deliverable: A recorded case plus a rewritten opening 90 seconds.

Ownership when the result is inconvenient

Sometimes the honest read is that the initiative did not work, and the person who commissioned the analysis was hoping otherwise. Interviewers want to know whether you softened it. Prepare the case where you delivered an unwelcome result, how you presented the uncertainty without hiding behind it, and what the team did next.

Allocate one analyst week across three competing requests

Easy · prioritisation · stakeholders · scoping

Three requests arrive the same morning and you have one week. Finance wants per-account gross margin from fct_usage_daily for a pricing review in three weeks. Sales wants a renewal-risk list for accounts with term_end_date inside 60 days. A product manager wants an experiment readout for a decision being taken on Thursday. Produce your allocation with hours attached, what you say to whoever receives less, and one thing you refuse to do this week, with the reason each decision is defensible to the person it costs.

Approach

1. The interviewer is probing whether you prioritise on decision timing and reversibility or on who asked most forcefully. Sort by the date each decision is actually taken and by what the default outcome is if nothing arrives.
2. Apply that sort concretely. The Thursday readout has a hard irreversible deadline and no value afterwards. The pricing review has three weeks of slack. The renewal list has a rolling deadline set by term_end_date, so part of it is urgent this week and the rest is not, which means it can be split rather than deferred whole.
3. Find the cheapest sufficient version of each request rather than the full version. The readout goes in full. The renewal list ships as a filtered query over renewal-eligible accounts ranked by two inspectable signals rather than as a model. The margin work is scoped to the accounts that dominate the pricing decision, since revenue is heavily skewed and the tail will not change the conclusion.
4. Make the trade visible in one written note to all three at once, with dates. Telling each person separately that they are the priority is how an allocation becomes a credibility problem.
5. Refuse something explicitly and say why. The model version of the renewal list is the usual candidate, because it cannot be evaluated without a holdout nobody has agreed to yet, and building it this week forecloses that.
6. Leave slack. A plan with none is a plan to miss the one deadline that cannot move.

Follow-up

• The sales leader escalates to your manager. What did you already do that makes that a short conversation?
• Which of the three deadlines would you push back on, and what exactly would you ask for?
• What would you change about how these requests reach you so next week is not the same?

Disagree with a product manager about an adoption claim

Medium · conflict · telemetry hygiene · adoption metrics

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Defend a churn number twelve times the one in the board deck

Hard · stakeholder management · retention metrics · definitions

You recompute logo churn on the renewal-eligible base from fct_subscription_period, counting only accounts whose term_end_date fell in the month and allowing a 45-day grace for late paperwork. Annualised, about 14 percent of accounts that reach a renewal date do not renew. A revenue leader has been quoting 1.2 percent to the board for two quarters, computed by dividing non-renewed accounts by the entire customer base in each month and printing that monthly figure with no period attached. You have 20 minutes with that leader and the finance lead. Decide which number is reported from now on, and what happens to the two quarters already published.

Approach

1. The interviewer is probing whether you can hold a correct definition under social pressure without turning it into a competence dispute. Open by reproducing their 1.2 percent exactly, with their denominator and their months, so the disagreement is arithmetic both sides can see rather than a claim about who was careless.
2. Separate the two defects, because they are different in kind. The denominator is wrong: on annual contracts only about one twelfth of the base reaches a renewal date in any month, so an account eleven months from renewal sits in the denominator while being structurally incapable of entering the numerator, which suppresses the rate by a factor near twelve. The period is merely unstated: a monthly figure printed beside annual revenue targets gets read as an annual rate.
3. Say out loud that those two defects nearly cancel in the level, before the leader finds it. Twelve times 1.2 percent is about 14 percent, which is your number. That is the strongest thing you can say in the room, because it proves both figures rest on the same non-renewal count and moves the meeting onto which denominator and which period get published rather than onto whose query is right.
4. The level is recoverable; the series is not. Non-renewals in a month are the eligible base for that month times the churn rate, so dividing by a fixed whole base makes the published line proportional to how many contracts happen to come up that month. Where signings cluster at quarter ends, the eligible base in a quarter-end month can be several times a quiet month's, and the month-over-month moves the board has been reading as satisfaction are the signing calendar.
5. Separate the measurement change from a business change. Nothing got worse this week; the loss rate was always this. Bring net revenue retention over the same period as a ratio of sums on a cohort frozen twelve months earlier, because logo churn concentrated in small accounts can sit beside healthy revenue retention, and that combination is the actual story.
6. Offer a migration path rather than a correction. Report both rates for one quarter with a written bridge, restate the prior two quarters in an appendix instead of silently, and pin the definition, including the period it is stated over, somewhere finance and product both read it. Concede the limits of your own number: the 45-day grace means the most recent 45 days are not reportable, and churn must be dated on term_end_date rather than on updated_at. A strong answer volunteers this; a generic one only defends.

Follow-up

• The leader multiplies their monthly figure by twelve, lands on your annual number, and concludes nothing was ever wrong. What do you say?
• The leader says publishing the corrected rate costs the team its credibility with the board this quarter. What do you do?
• Gross logo retention worsened while net revenue retention improved. Which do you lead with, and what does the combination tell you about who is leaving?