Interview guides · ENGIE

ENGIE Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Timed data scientist practice for ENGIE: short SQL and probability sets run end to end, then scored against a rubric.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at ENGIE, you play a crucial role in leveraging data to drive decisions and enhance operational efficiency within the energy sector. Your expertise enables the organization to harness vast amounts of data, transforming it into actionable insights that influence product development, operational strategies, and customer satisfaction. By applying advanced analytical techniques and statistical models, you help ENGIE navigate the complexities of energy markets and improve service offerings to meet user needs.

Scope your preparation by the data you would actually touch, because the title will not tell you. A seat that lives in event logs and weekly readouts rewards fluency in aggregation and metric definitions; a seat that owns a model in production rewards fluency in train/serve skew, retraining cadence and drift monitoring. The fastest way to find out which one you are interviewing for is to ask what the team shipped last quarter and what it gets paged about.

Focus areas

Turn a vague request into a measurable question
Define numerator, denominator and window precisely
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

This position is vital for addressing key challenges in the energy domain, such as optimizing resource allocation, improving predictive maintenance, and enhancing energy efficiency. You'll work on projects that directly impact the company's strategic goals, collaborating with cross-functional teams to develop innovative solutions. Your work will not only affect ENGIE's bottom line but also contribute to sustainable energy practices, making your role both impactful and rewarding.

The ENGIE interview process

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

HR Screening

Data Scientist covers at least four different jobs: experimentation, product analytics, causal work on observational data, and applied modelling that ships into a system. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which of them is being hired for, and doing that diagnosis openly reads as senior rather than fussy. Ask what the last few pieces of work on the team actually were, and roughly how a week splits between querying, modelling and stakeholder time. Then say which parts of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole range is the fastest way to be caught one round later.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can distinguish the flavours of the role and locate your own experience inside one of them honestly
Whether you name what you have not done instead of stretching to cover every line of the posting
Whether your hard constraints (notice period, location, work authorisation, level) surface now rather than at offer stage

How to prepare

Map the last two years of your time into rough percentages across query writing, experiment design, modelling and stakeholder work, so a question about scope has a real answer
Mark every responsibility in the posting as done, adjacent or new, and prepare one sentence for each adjacent item naming the closest thing you have actually built
Decide which logistics are non-negotiable before the call so you can state them in one sentence rather than negotiating live

Technical Interviews

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 Evaluations

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.

Where candidates lose points

Watching an experiment daily and stopping when it crosses significance

A fixed-sample test controls type I error at one pre-declared look. Checking repeatedly and stopping at the first p < 0.05 inflates the false positive rate to roughly 0.15 to 0.20 for ten looks, and it rises further with more frequent checks, because the p-value takes a random walk that will eventually dip below the threshold under the null. The usual defences are a fixed horizon declared before launch, group-sequential boundaries such as O'Brien-Fleming that spend alpha across a planned number of looks, or always-valid confidence sequences that are correct under continuous monitoring. Compounding it, the effect size reported conditional on having crossed the threshold is biased away from zero, and the bias is larger the lower the power was, so an underpowered test that 'won' typically overstates the lift it found.

Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel

The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.

Reading an observational correlation as a causal effect

Name the confounder you are most worried about and the design that would remove it: an experiment, a difference-in-differences with a checked pre-period trend, an instrument, or a regression discontinuity. When none is available, state which direction the bias likely runs and bound the claim accordingly.

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

Explain the time complexity of a sorting algorithm you frequently use.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
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.

Follow-up

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

What metrics do you consider when evaluating the performance of a model?

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.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Split a pooled conversion drop into rate and mix

Medium · mix shift · decomposition · pandas

You have weekly visit-to-signup counts by segment: a DataFrame with week, device_type, referrer_channel, visitors and signups. The pooled rate fell 0.84 percentage points between two consecutive weeks while several individual segments rose. Write a function that, for a caller-supplied list of segment columns, splits the pooled change into a rate effect, a mix effect and an interaction term that sum exactly to the observed change. Return those three scalars plus a per-segment contribution table sorted by absolute contribution, so the largest single driver can be named.

Approach

State the algebra before coding: the pooled rate is r = sum over segments of w_s * r_s, with w_s the segment's share of the denominator. Then r1 - r0 decomposes exactly into sum(w_s0 * (r_s1 - r_s0)) for rate, sum((w_s1 - w_s0) * r_s0) for mix, and sum((w_s1 - w_s0) * (r_s1 - r_s0)) for interaction. The identity is per-segment, so it holds for any numbers you put in the four slots.
Pivot both weeks onto a common segment index with an outer join so a segment that appeared or vanished is kept rather than dropped, then decide what rate to give a segment with no visitors in one of the weeks, and document the choice. The identity stays exact either way because the missing week's weight is 0, but the attribution does not. Filling the missing rate with 0 sends an appearing segment's entire w_s1 * r_s1 into the interaction term, since w_s0 = 0 makes both the rate term and the mix term (w_s1 - w_s0) * r_s0 identically zero; a vanishing segment then splits as -w_s0 * r_s0 in rate, -w_s0 * r_s0 in mix and +w_s0 * r_s0 in interaction.
The convention used below instead imputes the missing week's rate as that week's pooled rate. A vanishing segment then lands wholly in mix at -w_s0 * r_s0, with rate and interaction cancelling; an appearing segment puts w_s1 * r_pooled0 in mix (volume arriving at the average rate) and only w_s1 * (r_s1 - r_pooled0) in interaction (its rate differing from that average). Impute by which week the segment is missing from, never by argument order, or the swap identities below stop holding.
Guard the division where visitors is 0 so no NaN enters the vectors, because a single NaN poisons every sum. A segment with zero visitors in both weeks contributes exactly 0 and can be dropped; a segment missing from only one week does not contribute 0, and where its contribution lands is settled by the convention above, not by the guard.
Compute the three components as vectors over segments, then sum. Keep the vectors, because the per-segment contribution table is what turns the decomposition into an explanation.
Assert that the three components sum to the observed pooled change within floating-point tolerance. This identity is exact, so a mismatch means an implementation bug, not a modelling judgement.

Worked solution (25 min)

Aggregate to one row per (week, segment tuple) with summed visitors and signups, then split into w0 and w1 frames and align with an outer join, filling missing visitors and signups with 0.
Compute w_s = visitors / visitors.sum() within each week, and r_s = signups / visitors only where visitors > 0. Where a week's visitors are 0, set that week's r_s to that week's pooled rate, the stated convention; never leave it NaN.
rate_effect = (w0 * (r1 - r0)).sum(); mix_effect = ((w1 - w0) * r0).sum(); interaction = ((w1 - w0) * (r1 - r0)).sum().
contribution = w0*(r1-r0) + (w1-w0)r0 + (w1-w0)(r1-r0) per segment, which reduces to w1r1 - w0r0; sort by abs and return the head.
assert abs(rate + mix + interaction - (pooled1 - pooled0)) < 1e-12.

Expected result: Three scalars summing exactly to the observed pooled change, plus a segment table whose contribution column also sums to that change. In the stated case rate and mix carry opposite signs: several segments converted better while volume moved toward a weaker-converting one, which is what makes the pooled move look inexplicable until it is split.

Verify it yourself

On synthetic data where every segment appears in both weeks, every segment rate is held constant and only the weights move, rate_effect and interaction are exactly 0.
On synthetic data where every segment appears in both weeks, weights are held constant and only rates move, mix_effect and interaction are exactly 0.
The per-segment contribution column sums to the pooled change, matching the sum of the three scalars.
Swapping the two weeks negates the total, as it must, but not the parts. Assert the three identities that actually hold: the interaction term is exactly invariant, because both of its factors change sign; the swapped rate effect equals -(rate_effect + interaction); and the swapped mix effect equals -(mix_effect + interaction). They still sum to the negated pooled change. Expecting all three to flip sign is the common wrong assertion.
Plant a segment present only in week 1, holding 3 percent of week-1 visitors at a rate well below pooled. Under the documented pooled-rate convention its mix contribution is w_s1 * r_pooled0 and its interaction contribution is w_s1 * (r_s1 - r_pooled0), with a rate contribution of exactly 0; under a zero-fill convention its mix contribution is exactly 0 and the whole w_s1 * r_s1 lands in interaction. Assert whichever one the function documents, and fail if mix is asserted non-zero while the code zero-fills.

Follow-up

The mix effect accounts for 0.71 of the 0.84 point drop, driven by paid_social volume. What is your recommendation, and what would change it?
Why is a two-way split into a counterfactual rate and a residual also exact, and when would you prefer it to the three-way version?
Segmenting on device and channel leaves a large interaction term. What does that tell you about the choice of segments?

Write a SQL query to extract specific data from a relational database.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
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?

Given a dataset, how would you identify trends and derive insights?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
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

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?

Demonstrate how you would visualize data trends using a programming library.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

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

How would you estimate the impact of a new product feature on user engagement?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

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 do you prioritize tasks when managing multiple projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

What would be your approach to designing an experiment to test a hypothesis?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
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.

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?

Explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning.

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Randomise a shared workspace feature without contaminating control

Medium · randomisation unit · interference · design effect · clustering

A feature changes a collaborative surface inside a workspace: when one member uses it, other members of the same account see the result in their own view. You have dim_user (user_id, account_id, is_internal), dim_account (account_id, seats_assigned, lifecycle_status) and fct_event. Among active accounts the mean seats_assigned is 6, the coefficient of variation of that count is 1.5, and the intraclass correlation of the weekly core-action rate within an account is 0.10. Choose the randomisation unit, quantify what that choice costs in sample, and specify how you would compute inference.

Approach

State the interference before choosing anything: a treated user changes what an untreated colleague sees, so user-level randomisation puts both arms inside one account and biases the contrast toward zero. Randomise on account_id.
Price the clustering properly. With equal clusters the design effect is 1 + (m - 1) rho = 1 + 5(0.10) = 1.5. Sizes here are far from equal, so use 1 + ((CV^2 + 1) m - 1) rho = 1 + (3.25 x 6 - 1)(0.10) = 2.85. The equal-size shortcut understates the cost by nearly half.
Decide the estimand before the estimator. An account-weighted mean gives every workspace one vote; a user-weighted mean lets the largest workspaces dominate. With this size skew the two can move in opposite directions, so pick the one the decision needs and write it down.
Compute standard errors on the account, not the user: cluster-robust on account_id, or collapse each account to a single number and test those. Below roughly 40 clusters per arm, cluster-robust errors are biased downward, so use a wild cluster bootstrap or randomisation inference over the assignment.
Buy back variance where you can. Stratify assignment by seat band and lifecycle_status before randomising, and decide in advance how the handful of very large accounts are handled, since one enterprise workspace can carry more users than a hundred single-seat ones.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the interference down: the outcome for user i depends on the treatment of other users in account(i), so the no-interference assumption fails at the user level and holds at the account level.
Compute both design effects, 1.5 equal-size and 2.85 unequal-size, and use 2.85.
Take the user-level sample requirement from the proportion shortcut, multiply by 2.85, then divide by the mean of 6 users per account to express it in accounts per arm.
Specify the analysis: collapse to one row per account, regress the account-level outcome on variant with stratum fixed effects, and use a wild cluster bootstrap for inference.
State the stopping rule up front: if the required account count exceeds the eligible population, the test is not runnable, and the alternatives are a longer window, a larger target effect, or a non-experimental read.

Expected result: Randomise on account_id. The unequal-size design effect is 2.85, so a user-level requirement of 12,000 per arm becomes 34,200 user-equivalents, which is 5,700 accounts per arm, with inference computed on accounts rather than users.

Verify it yourself

The design effect must be at least 1, and must equal 1 when rho = 0 or when mean cluster size is 1. A value below 1 means a term is inverted.
Recomputing the unequal-size formula with CV = 0 must return the equal-size value of 1.5.
The cluster-robust standard error on account_id should come out about sqrt(2.85) = 1.69 times the naive user-level one. A ratio near 1 means the clustering was not applied.

Follow-up

Suppose the feature is not workspace-scoped but changes a globally shared ranking model, so no clean cluster exists. What design gets you a causal read, and what does it cost you?
You have 900 eligible active accounts in total. Given the design effect, what absolute lift can this test detect, and is the honest answer 'do not run it'?
The intraclass correlation is an estimate from last quarter. What happens to your sizing if the true value is 0.25?

Size every candidate cause of a trial-to-paid decline

Hard · cohort-maturity · experiment-readout · mix-shift · contribution-sizing

Trial-to-paid conversion on weekly trial-start cohorts from fct_subscription_period reads 3.1 points below the trailing eight-week mean for the three most recent cohorts. Three things happened in that window: a pricing experiment reached 50% of new trials, a payment processor migration added settlement delay, and paid_search spend tripled. Using fct_subscription_period, fct_experiment_exposure and dim_user, rank the causes by their contribution in points of the headline, state the remainder, and give the decision you would take on Monday.

Approach

Kill the immature cohorts first, because everything downstream is computed on them. The metric is lagged by the trial length plus a 14-day conversion window plus a settlement allowance, and a processor migration lengthens exactly that last term; recompute each cohort at a fixed cohort age rather than as of today, and confirm the newest cohort's value is still climbing day over day.
Hold the experiment analysis to the exposed population. Join fct_experiment_exposure on unit_id with is_in_analysis_population = TRUE rather than reading an assignment log, then check the variant split for a sample-ratio mismatch before believing any effect at all. Contribution to the headline is the variant effect multiplied by the exposed share, which is not the same number as the variant effect.
Decompose the cohort mix by dim_user.first_touch_channel using the same weight-times-rate arithmetic as any other mix question, so the paid_search increase is sized as a weight change at a measured conversion rate rather than asserted from the spend figure.
Convert all three to points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual against the historical week-to-week standard deviation of the metric. If the residual is inside that band, say so and stop looking; if it is outside, name what you would investigate next rather than leaving it implied.
Land the decision. Only one of the three is actionable on Monday, so state whether the experiment has accrued enough exposed units to stop at the pre-declared horizon, and state separately what the settlement-lag correction does to the published series and its lag rule.

Follow-up

How do you choose the fixed cohort age, and what do you lose by choosing it too long?
If the pricing variant is genuinely 1.2 points worse, does that settle whether to stop it? What else is on the other side of that decision?
The trailing eight-week mean spans the processor migration. What is the right baseline instead?

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.

How do you communicate complex data insights to non-technical stakeholders?

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

Follow-up

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

Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched

Hard · self-assessment · attribution · communication

You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you apply to your own work the causal standard you would apply to somebody else's roadmap claim. Nearly everyone who would reject 'accounts that do Y retain better' will write 'I drove a 14% increase' without noticing it is the same error with a friendlier subject.
Sort the work by the kind of evidence it can carry. The shipped experiment is the only item with a randomised estimate, so it is the only one where an effect size is defensible, and you claim the interval rather than the point estimate.
Claim the three flat experiments as decisions prevented and price them. Features not built, or built differently, on evidence, with the engineering weeks reallocated as the number somebody else can verify. A defensible null is a delivered decision and should be written as one.
Claim the definition fix as correctness, not as improvement. The old figure was overstated by a specific percentage and appeared in a specific set of recurring documents; the impact is the change it produced in the forecast built on top of it, not a change in churn itself.
Claim the dashboard on usage and displacement: distinct weekly users of it, and the ad-hoc request count for six months before against six months after. If the request log does not exist, record the claim as unverified rather than estimating it upward.
Disclaim the 14% explicitly and once. State that it cannot be separated from seasonality, other teams' launches and a pricing change, and bound your own contribution from above using the shipped experiment's interval converted into headline units.

Follow-up

Your shipped experiment's interval was +0.2pp to +1.4pp on activation. How much of the 14% can that account for, and how do you say so without undercutting yourself?
A peer in the same cycle claims the full 14%. What, if anything, do you do about it?
If you could only keep two of your three claims, which do you drop, and why that one?

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?