Interview guides · Edward Jones

Edward Jones Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Edward Jones Data Scientist interview guide: reported rounds, practice questions with worked solutions and a 7-day prep plan.

The 60-second brief

A Data Scientist at Edward Jones plays a pivotal role in transforming data into actionable insights that drive business strategy and improve client experiences. This position is crucial as it directly impacts how the firm understands market trends, customer behavior, and operational efficiency. By leveraging advanced analytics, machine learning, and statistical methods, you will contribute to the development of innovative financial products and services that align with the needs of clients.

Ask early whether the loop includes an asynchronous take-home or a timed live case, because the two are graded on different things. A take-home is read as an artifact: the question you decided to answer, what you did about missing or malformed records, and a conclusion stated plainly enough for someone to act on. A reviewer who cannot rerun your notebook discounts the result whatever score is printed in it. Hold to the stated time box and write down what you would have done with more of it, since the follow-up round is usually a live defence of the same work.

Focus areas

Turn a vague request into a measurable question
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix
Size an experiment before anyone launches it

Overview

The complexity and scale of the data you will work with are significant. As a Data Scientist, you will analyze vast datasets to identify patterns and trends that inform decision-making across various departments, including marketing, product development, and client services. This role is not only about crunching numbers; it involves collaborating with cross-functional teams to translate complex findings into strategic recommendations that enhance the firm's competitive edge.

Expect to engage with a diverse range of projects, from predictive modeling to natural language processing, all aimed at refining how Edward Jones serves its clients. This position offers the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the business while developing your skills in a dynamic, collaborative environment.

The Edward Jones interview process

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

Technical Assessments

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Behavioral Interviews

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Presentation Component

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.

Stakeholder Interviews

Rounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.

What to demonstrate

Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options

How to prepare

Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.

Where candidates lose points

Comparing cohort retention curves of different maturities, or building the curve from users who are still present

A cohort four weeks old has no week-8 value, so an average taken across cohorts silently drops young cohorts from the later columns and keeps them in the earlier ones. The curve then bends upward at the tail, and the reading that 'retention is improving over time' is an artefact of which cohorts survived to be measured. The same error appears in the denominator when retention is computed over users active in the current period rather than over the full original cohort, which conditions on survival and guarantees a flattering number. The fix is a triangle: fix the cohort at signup, bound every window on both sides, and only compare cells where every cohort has had the full elapsed time, publishing the rest as blank rather than as a partial average.

Counting on an identity key that changes underneath the metric

visitor_id is per browser and per device, and it resets on cookie clearance, private browsing and platform privacy changes, so the distinct-visitor count drifts upward for reasons unrelated to reach. Any rate with visitors in the denominator therefore decays over time even when behaviour is constant, and any rate with visitors in the numerator inflates. The stitching at signup makes it worse in both directions: a user who signed up on mobile and returns on desktop is two visitors and one user, while a shared device is one visitor and several users. Decide which key each metric is counted on, write it into the definition, and when comparing a period before and after a platform privacy change, expect a level shift in every visitor-keyed metric and do not attribute it to the product.

Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised

Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.

Reaching for a model before the target metric exists

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

Questions & practice

Can you write a function in Python to calculate the mean and standard deviation of a list?

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.

Follow-up

Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?
How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?

What experience do you have with NLP models, particularly transformers?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

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

Permutation test for a difference in conversion rates

Medium · permutation test · resampling · inference

Write a two-sided permutation test from scratch for a difference in conversion rates, using no scipy hypothesis function. Input: a DataFrame with unit_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}, one row per randomisation unit. Compute the observed difference in proportions, then build the null distribution by reshuffling the variant labels while holding each arm's size fixed. Report the p-value as (1 + the count of permuted statistics at least as extreme in absolute value) / (B + 1) with B at least 10,000, and return the permutation distribution.

Approach

Name the null being tested: the sharp null that each unit's outcome is the same under either label. That is what licenses permuting labels, and it is stronger than the null of equal means, which matters when someone asks whether the test is valid under unequal variances.
Extract converted to a single numpy array of 0s and 1s and record n_treatment. Every permutation is then just a reshuffle of one array, and the treatment mean is the mean of the first n_treatment entries of the shuffled array.
Vectorise the B permutations with rng.permuted on a tiled 2-D array, or with argsort of a (B, n) random matrix. A Python loop calling np.random.shuffle B times is correct but roughly an order of magnitude slower and often runs past the time limit.
Use the +1 correction in both numerator and denominator. Without it a p-value of exactly 0 is reportable, which is false: the observed labelling is itself one of the permutations, so the smallest attainable p-value is 1/(B+1).
Compare the resulting p-value against a two-proportion z-test as a sanity check. At these sample sizes they should agree closely; a large divergence means the statistic or the shuffle is wrong, not that the permutation test found something subtle.

Worked solution (25 min)

y = df['converted'].to_numpy(); n_t = (df['variant'] == 'treatment').sum(); obs = y[treat_mask].mean() - y[~treat_mask].mean().
Build the null: for B draws, shuffle y and take the mean of the first n_t entries minus the mean of the rest.
p = (1 + (np.abs(null) >= abs(obs) - 1e-12).sum()) / (B + 1), with the small tolerance so exact ties count as at least as extreme.
Return obs, p and the null array; plot or describe the null to confirm it is centred at 0.

Expected result: The observed difference, a p-value in [1/(B+1), 1], and a null distribution whose mean is approximately 0 and whose standard deviation approximately matches the analytic pooled standard error sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)).

Verify it yourself

The null distribution's mean is within a few Monte Carlo standard errors of 0; if it is centred on the observed difference, the code bootstrapped instead of permuted.
The null's standard deviation agrees with the analytic pooled standard error to within a couple of percent.
The p-value agrees with a hand-computed two-proportion z-test p-value to within about 0.01 at these sample sizes.
Setting converted identical in both arms by construction yields a p-value near 1, and a planted large effect yields the floor of 1/(B+1).

Follow-up

The arms are 200 and 20,000 units. Does the permutation test stay valid, and what happens to its resolution at B = 10,000?
Give a 95 percent confidence interval for the difference. Can you get it from this permutation distribution, and if not, what would you run instead?
The randomisation unit is user_id but the outcome is per session. What breaks, and what is the fix?

Discuss the differences between supervised and unsupervised learning.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.

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?

Seven-day activation rate by weekly signup cohort

Easy · cohorts · activation · date-bounds

dim_user holds user_id, account_created_at_utc, is_internal. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action. A user is activated when core-action events fall on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Return, for the last twelve complete weekly signup cohorts, the cohort week, cohort size, activated users and the activation rate. Exclude is_internal users. Every signup in the cohort week stays in the denominator, including users who never returned.

Approach

Start from dim_user as the denominator spine with is_internal = FALSE and DATE_TRUNC('week', account_created_at_utc) as the cohort key. Driving the query from the event table instead would silently condition on having events and delete the entire non-activating population.
Join fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and a per-user bound, occurred_at_utc >= u.account_created_at_utc AND occurred_at_utc < u.account_created_at_utc + interval '7 days'. The bound is correlated to each user's own signup timestamp, not a single global date range.
Aggregate per user with COUNT(DISTINCT occurred_at_utc::date) >= 2, then LEFT JOIN that back onto the spine and COALESCE the flag to FALSE so non-activators contribute a zero rather than vanishing.
Restrict the published cohorts to those whose week ended at least eight days ago. A cohort younger than that has not finished its seven-day window, so its rate is mechanically low and reads as a decline.
Roll up by summing the numerator and denominator per cohort week, and state the two-distinct-days threshold next to the number since it is a choice that re-bases the whole history if changed.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the cohort spine and confirm its total equals the count of non-internal signups in the date range.
Write the per-user distinct-active-days CTE with both interval bounds and inspect a handful of users manually.
LEFT JOIN, COALESCE the flag, aggregate to cohort week.
Apply the eight-day publication lag and drop the incomplete cohort.
Re-run with a closed upper bound (<= +7 days) and note how many users change state, to show the boundary is doing work.

Expected result: Twelve rows, one per cohort week, each with cohort_size, activated and rate. Cohort sizes sum to the total non-internal signup count across those twelve weeks. No cohort is younger than eight days.

Verify it yourself

activated is never greater than cohort_size in any row.
A user with three core actions on a single day is not counted as activated.
Removing the LEFT JOIN in favour of an inner join raises every rate, which demonstrates the denominator was being conditioned on survival.
Cohort sizes sum to an independent COUNT(*) over dim_user for the same range.

Follow-up

Why two distinct days rather than one event? What happens to the published history if someone changes it to three?
Invited seats and SSO-provisioned users get an account_created_at_utc at provisioning and may never sign in. Should they be in this denominator?
The rate rose 3 points this week. What do you check before believing it?

If you were given a dataset with missing values, what methods would you use to address this?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you approach analyzing client data to identify upsell opportunities?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you prioritize your work when managing multiple projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
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.

Follow-up

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

What steps would you take to validate the results of your analysis?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Describe how you would design an experiment to test a new financial product's effectiveness.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.

Follow-up

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

Describe a challenging data analysis problem you've solved and the techniques you used.

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

Halve the runtime of a flat test with pre-period data

Medium · cuped · variance reduction · stratification

A test on 28-day core actions per user is powered for six weeks and the team will not wait. You have fct_event (user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action) covering the period before each unit's first_exposed_at_utc in fct_experiment_exposure, and the pre-period count correlates with the in-experiment count at r = 0.6. Apply CUPED, state precisely how much runtime it buys, and handle the units with no pre-period because they signed up after the experiment started.

Approach

Define the adjusted outcome: Y_cuped = Y - theta (X - Xbar), with theta = Cov(Y, X) / Var(X) estimated on the pooled sample so theta itself carries no treatment effect. It is unbiased because X is pre-exposure and therefore has equal expectation in both arms.
Quantify the gain exactly: Var(Y_cuped) = Var(Y)(1 - r^2) = Var(Y) x 0.64, so 36% of the variance is removed. Required sample scales with variance, so six weeks becomes 3.8 weeks, and at the original sample the MDE shrinks by sqrt(0.64) = 0.8.
State the precondition that actually bites: X must be measured strictly before first_exposed_at_utc, not before assigned_at_utc and not before the calendar start of the experiment. Any post-exposure information in the covariate lets the treatment effect leak in and biases the estimate rather than merely failing to help.
Handle missing pre-periods as a stratum, never by dropping rows. Dropping changes the population; setting X to the pooled mean leaves those units' adjustment at zero, which is unbiased but buys them no reduction, so report the covered share and expect the blended reduction to fall short of 36%.
Note that stratification is the same mechanism with a categorical covariate. Post-stratifying on device_type and referrer_channel removes the variance those stratum means explain, and it composes with CUPED provided the strata are also fixed before exposure.

Worked solution (30 min)

Build the covariate: for each unit_id in fct_experiment_exposure, count fct_event rows with is_core_action = TRUE and occurred_at_utc in [first_exposed_at_utc - 28 days, first_exposed_at_utc).
Estimate theta on the pooled sample as Cov(Y, X) / Var(X), and confirm Xbar is statistically indistinguishable between arms before using it.
Form Y_cuped = Y - theta (X - Xbar) and run exactly the test you would have run on Y.
For units with no pre-period, set X to the pooled mean so their adjustment is zero, and report what share of the sample that is.
Report unadjusted and adjusted estimates side by side, with the interval narrower on the adjusted one.

Expected result: 1 - 0.6^2 = 0.36 of the outcome variance is removed, so the required sample falls to 64% of the original and the six-week plan becomes about 3.8 weeks. At the original sample the MDE shrinks by a factor of 0.8. The blended reduction is smaller in proportion to the share of units with no pre-period, and that share is stated alongside the result.

Verify it yourself

Adjusted and unadjusted point estimates should be close. CUPED reduces variance, it does not move the effect, so a large shift means X was imbalanced at baseline and needs investigating rather than celebrating.
The realised standard error ratio should be near sqrt(1 - r^2) using the r observed in this experiment, not the historical r.
Var(Y_cuped) must be no larger than Var(Y) for the fitted theta. A larger value means theta has the wrong sign or was estimated on the wrong window.

Follow-up

Here the covariate is the same metric as the outcome. When would you deliberately pick a different one, and what is the risk if that covariate is itself affected by treatment?
The point estimate moves by 0.4 standard errors when CUPED is applied. Is that reassuring or alarming, and what would you check?
How does CUPED combine with cluster randomisation on account_id, and at which grain is the covariate built?

Tell a pipeline outage from a collapse in usage

Medium · pipeline-failure · instrumentation · event-volume

Weekly active accounts completing a core action fell 9%, and almost the entire fall sits in accounts whose events carry surface = 'ios'. App crash rates and store reviews are unchanged. You have fct_event with occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc, event_name, is_core_action, app_version and surface, plus fct_session and the ingestion job run log. Establish within the hour whether iOS engagement fell or iOS events stopped arriving, name the evidence that distinguishes them, and say what you would publish on the dashboard in the meantime.

Approach

Compare the event-name composition inside surface = 'ios' against the prior four weeks as shares, not counts. A behaviour collapse scales most event names together; a dropped event definition or a broken downstream filter hits specific event_name values while page_view and session-opening events hold steady. That shape difference is the fastest discriminator available.
Profile the received_at_utc minus occurred_at_utc distribution per day for surface = 'ios'. A stalled-then-backfilling pipeline shows a fat upper tail and a recovering p99; a silently dropped stream shows an unchanged lag distribution over a smaller volume. The two failure modes have different remedies and different histories.
Cut by app_version. A logging SDK change arrives with one build and ramps with its adoption curve; an infrastructure fault arrives across every build within the same hour. Checking this costs one group-by and rules out half the hypothesis space.
Cross-check against a signal that does not travel the suspect path: server-emitted events with session_id NULL, and subscription or billing activity for the same accounts. If those accounts are still transacting, the users did not leave.
Publish an ex-iOS total with an explicit annotated break rather than a blended total. A blended number during a known ingestion gap is wrong in a direction you can already name, and republishing it daily spreads the artefact into every downstream report.

Follow-up

Suppose the events do eventually backfill. What is your policy for restating the published weekly numbers, and who needs to be told?
What monitor would have caught this before a human noticed the weekly metric, and what would it alert on?
If is_core_action is maintained in the tracking plan, what governance would stop a change to that list from silently moving a north-star metric?

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.

Bring numbers, including the ones you are unsure of

An answer without a quantity is hard to interrogate, so interviewers keep probing until they find one. Come with the baseline, the change, the window it was measured over, and how confident you were. If the effect never got measured, say so and say what you would have measured. Fabricated precision is worse than an honest gap.

Tell me about a time you had to collaborate with a difficult stakeholder. How did you handle it?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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

Turn an ambiguous onboarding question into a measurable metric

Easy · scoping · metric definition · stakeholder

Two days before a planning review, a director asks whether onboarding is working. You have dim_user (account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal), fct_event (is_core_action, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc) and fct_session. No further meeting with the director is possible before you start work. Deliver three clarifying questions you would send in writing, the metric you will compute in the meantime with its numerator, denominator, window and exclusions, and one sentence naming the question you are deliberately not answering.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you convert a goal into a computable predicate without stalling for requirements or guessing in silence. Listing clarifying questions is the generic answer; shipping a defensible default alongside them is the strong one, because the review is in two days and it will happen with or without you.
Infer the decision behind the request. A question about whether onboarding works, arriving before a planning cycle, usually means whether to staff it next quarter. That points at a rate with visible headroom over several cohorts, not at a descriptive dashboard.
Write the three questions so that each one changes the SQL. Which population, all signups or only self-serve from dim_user.signup_surface. What counts as working, reaching a core action or completing the onboarding flow_id. Against what bar, last quarter's cohorts or a stated target.
Propose the default explicitly: seven-day activation on weekly signup cohorts. Numerator, users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Denominator, the signup cohort with is_internal = FALSE. Publish with an eight-day lag, and state that the two-distinct-days threshold is a frozen choice rather than a discovery.
Name the exclusion in the same breath as the number. The series shows whether users activate; it does not establish that onboarding caused the level, which needs a staged rollout or an experiment.

Follow-up

The director replies that they meant the onboarding flow specifically, not activation. What changes in the query and in the caveats?
Your cohort metric needs an eight-day lag and the review is in two days. What do you present, and how do you label it?
Two of your three questions come back unanswered. Which one do you refuse to proceed without?

Disagree with a product manager's roadmap claim using data

Medium · causal inference · selection bias · stakeholder

A product manager proposes building a feature on the argument that accounts connecting an integration in week one retain three times better at week four. The figure is correctly computed from dim_user and fct_event, and it has already been shown to leadership. You have one scheduled 1:1 before the roadmap locks. Deliver the specific analysis you would run to test whether the relationship is causal, the result that would change your own mind, and how you open the conversation so that the PM is not put in the position of defending the number in public.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can separate a number being right from an inference being wrong, and do it without costing the PM face. The generic answer recites that correlation is not causation; the strong one names the specific confound and proposes the cheapest design that could distinguish the explanations.
State the alternative concretely. Accounts that connect an integration in week one are accounts that already have a workflow and a technical owner, so week-one intent plausibly drives both the connection and week-four retention. The selection is on intent, which no amount of post-hoc adjustment observes.
Order the discriminating analyses by cost. First, condition on pre-connection activity by comparing retention within strata of week-one core-action count, which removes the crude version of the confound but not unobserved intent. Second, look for variation in integration availability that was unrelated to intent, such as a staggered release or an outage window. Third, an encouragement design that randomises a prompt to connect and reads the intent-to-treat effect on week-four retention, which is the only version that identifies an effect.
Run the timing check, because it is nearly free and it is the most persuasive single piece of evidence. If the retention advantage among connectors is already visible before any of them connected, the causal story is largely finished.
Pre-commit to what would change your mind and say it before you show anything: if the gap survives stratification and the encouragement arm moves week-four retention at all, the feature has a case and you will say so.
Open the 1:1 by agreeing with the true part, that the correlation is real and worth chasing, then ask what effect size the roadmap plan assumes. That makes the size of the claim the topic instead of its authorship.

Follow-up

The encouragement test needs six weeks and the roadmap locks in two. What do you recommend in the interim?
Stratifying on week-one activity closes half the gap. What do you conclude, and what do you still not know?
How would you word this in the roadmap document so the PM's original number is reframed rather than deleted?