Interview guides · Enverus

Enverus Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Take-home style practice for data scientist candidates: a messy dataset, a fixed time budget, and an analysis you write up and defend.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Enverus, you will play a pivotal role in driving data-driven decisions that enhance the company’s products and services. Your work will directly influence how our teams tackle complex challenges in the energy sector, utilizing advanced analytics to provide insights that inform strategic business decisions. This position is crucial for ensuring that Enverus remains at the forefront of innovation and efficiency in energy data analytics.

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

Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost
Reconcile amounts in minor units and currency

Overview

You will engage with cross-functional teams, leveraging your expertise to solve real-world problems and enhance product offerings. Whether it’s through developing predictive models, analyzing large datasets, or creating visualizations, your contributions will significantly impact the company’s ability to deliver actionable insights to users. Expect to work on diverse projects that require deep analytical thinking and a strong understanding of the energy domain, making this role both challenging and rewarding.

The Enverus interview process

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

Initial Phone Screen

Whoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.

What to demonstrate

Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed

How to prepare

Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands

Team 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.

Final Discussions

A day of back-to-back interviews samples your floor, not your ceiling. Four hours in, the habits that carry a good answer are the first to go: restating the question before solving it, asking what the data would have to look like, checking a number before quoting it. What the day decides is whether the tired version of you is still someone to leave alone with an ambiguous problem. The round that sinks a candidate is usually not the hardest one. It is the one immediately after the round that went badly.

What to demonstrate

Whether the late rounds get the same clarifying questions as the first one, or whether you start answering immediately to save effort
Whether a weak answer stays in the room it happened in, instead of following you into the next conversation as apology or distraction
Whether the quality of your questions holds up, since fatigue removes curiosity about the problem before it removes knowledge of the method

How to prepare

Rehearse the length, not just the content: book four mock interviews of different types in one afternoon with short gaps, because the one you need to observe is the fourth
Put the two or three questions you ask at the start of any problem on a card in front of you, so that under fatigue it is a habit you run rather than a decision you make
Decide in advance what the gap between rooms is for: water, one line of notes on anything you promised to follow up, and an explicit close on the round that just ended so it does not travel
Prepare a different closing question for each interviewer, so the end of a long day does not produce the same one four times

Where candidates lose points

Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs

Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.

Reading the most recent months of fraud and dispute rates as final

Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, and several reason codes run considerably longer, so the disputes belonging to a recent transaction month have simply not been filed yet. Any chart attributed by transaction date therefore slopes down at the right edge regardless of what is happening. The fix is to report only matured cohorts, or to apply development factors estimated from completed months and to show the estimate as an estimate.

Reporting a p-value with no effect size or interval

Give the estimated difference with a confidence interval in the units the business cares about, then say whether that whole interval is worth acting on. A p-value only addresses whether you can rule out exactly zero; it says nothing about magnitude.

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.

Questions & practice

Describe a project where you applied machine learning techniques. What challenges did you face?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
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 would you use to evaluate the performance of a classification model?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
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?

Bootstrap a fraud loss rate that clusters within merchant

Medium · bootstrap · clustered resampling · heavy tails

You have a per-transaction frame with auth_id, merchant_id, settled_amount_reporting and net_loss_reporting, both already in one reporting currency. Most rows carry zero loss, a few carry large ones, and losses cluster within merchant. Using only numpy's random generator and no resampling helper from any library, write a bootstrap that returns a 95 percent interval for net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, resampling merchants with replacement and taking all rows belonging to each drawn merchant. Also produce the naive row-level interval and state which you would report.

Approach

State the estimator before writing it: total net loss divided by total settled volume, times 10,000. It is a ratio of sums, so each replicate recomputes both sums. Averaging per-transaction loss rates instead would weight a five-unit transaction like a five-thousand-unit one.
Pre-aggregate loss and volume to merchant level once. For a ratio of sums, drawing merchants and taking all their rows is arithmetically identical to drawing merchant-level (loss_sum, volume_sum) pairs, so a replicate becomes one integer draw plus two vectorised sums rather than a groupby inside the loop.
Draw B replicates of M merchant indices with replacement, where M is the observed merchant count, compute the ratio per replicate, and take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. Say explicitly that this is a percentile interval and that BCa would correct the skew-induced bias if the decision is close.
Repeat with independent row draws for the naive interval and compare widths on the same replicate count.
Report the clustered interval. Rows within a merchant share an acceptance profile, a category code and a fraud exposure, so they are not independent, and the row-level interval understates variance by roughly the design effect.

Worked solution (30 min)

Compute the point estimate directly on the full data and keep it for comparison.
Aggregate to merchant-level loss and volume arrays, record M, and set B to 2,000 with a seeded numpy Generator.
In a vectorised loop, draw integer indices of shape (B, M), index both arrays, sum along axis 1, and take the ratio times 10,000.
Repeat for the row-level version using the per-transaction arrays and N draws.
Take the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of each replicate array and report both intervals alongside the point estimate.

Expected result: Two intervals in basis points sharing the same point estimate. The clustered interval is materially wider, commonly two to four times, and is right-skewed because a heavy merchant can be drawn more than once in a replicate.

Verify it yourself

The point estimate equals the direct ratio on the full data and lies inside both intervals.
A synthetic input where every merchant holds exactly one transaction makes the clustered and naive intervals coincide; this is the test that the resampling unit is wired correctly.
Raising B from 2,000 to 10,000 shifts the endpoints by less than the reporting precision; if it does not, a handful of merchants is driving the tail and the estimate needs that caveat.
Replicate ratios never fall outside the range implied by drawing only the lowest-loss or only the highest-loss merchants.

Follow-up

Your clustered interval is three times wider. How do you explain that to someone who wanted a tighter number?
One merchant accounts for 40 percent of losses. What does that do to the interval, and what would you do about it?
How does this change if the question is whether two months differ rather than what this month's rate is?

Attribute chargebacks to transaction month without fanning out

Medium · fan-out · cohort attribution · maturity

Report the matured first-chargeback rate. Numerator: fct_card_dispute rows whose dispute_stage is first_chargeback, representment, pre_arbitration or arbitration, attributed to the requested_at month of the linked fct_payment_authorization row rather than to opened_at. Denominator: settled authorizations in that same transaction month, meaning settled_at is not null and is_reversal is false. One authorization can carry more than one dispute case. Report only transaction months whose last day is at least 120 days old, and mark the remainder incomplete rather than showing them as low.

Approach

Compute the denominator from fct_payment_authorization alone, grouped by the requested_at month, before any dispute table is mentioned, so the join cannot touch it.
Compute the numerator as a separate aggregate: join disputes to their authorization only to recover requested_at, then count dispute rows per transaction month with the stage filter.
Join the two aggregates on the month key, which keeps the grain at one row per month and makes double counting structurally impossible rather than something you have to remember.
Apply the maturity gate on the month's last day plus 120 days against the current date, because a transaction on the final day of the month is the least mature one in the cohort.
Emit an explicit status column of 'final' or 'incomplete' instead of filtering immature months away silently, so a reader cannot mistake absence for zero.

Follow-up

Should the numerator count dispute cases or disputed authorizations? Which one reconciles to the loss line, and which one to the operations queue?
Some reason codes allow filing well beyond 120 days. How would you estimate the tail on a month you have decided to call final?
How would you present the incomplete months so that a weekly reader does not read the right-hand slope as an improvement?

Vintage ninety-plus rate at twelve months on book

Medium · vintage analysis · window functions · right censoring

From fct_loan_performance_monthly, build a vintage table keyed on origination_month: the share of each cohort that ever reached days_past_due of 90 or more, or charge_off_flag = true, at or before months_on_book = 12. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so for any loan with restructured_flag true, evaluate only the month ends strictly before its first restructured month. Return origination_month, loans_funded, bad_loans and bad_rate. Exclude any cohort that does not yet have a months_on_book = 12 observation for every loan still on book.

Approach

Establish the cohort denominator from the first month end each loan appears at, months_on_book = 0, so a loan is counted once in its origination_month rather than once per monthly row.
Find each loan's first restructured month with MIN(as_of_month_end) FILTER (WHERE restructured_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id), or the equivalent grouped subquery, and keep it null for loans never restructured.
Flag a loan bad if any row with months_on_book <= 12 and as_of_month_end earlier than that first restructured month has days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag = true, which is what 'pre-restructure worst state' means in practice.
Gate maturity by requiring the cohort's newest month end to be at least 12 months after origination_month, and report immature cohorts as incomplete rather than letting them appear at a flattering low rate.
Aggregate to one row per origination_month and read the column downward, not across calendar time, because the whole point is comparing cohorts at equal age.

Worked solution (35 min)

CTE 1: per loan_id, derive origination_month, the first restructured month end, and the maximum months_on_book observed.
CTE 2: join back to the monthly rows, filter to months_on_book <= 12 and to month ends before any restructure, then flag bad with a BOOL_OR.
CTE 3: aggregate to origination_month with COUNT() as loans_funded and COUNT() FILTER (WHERE is_bad) as bad_loans.
Apply the maturity gate and compute bad_rate with a numeric cast.

Expected result: One row per matured origination_month with loans_funded, bad_loans and a bad_rate between 0 and 1. The most recent immature cohorts are absent from the output entirely rather than present with a small bad_rate.

Verify it yourself

SUM(loans_funded) across reported cohorts equals COUNT(DISTINCT loan_id) restricted to those same origination months.
Recomputing without the months_on_book cap raises bad_rate monotonically for every cohort, and raises it most for the oldest, which is the seasoning effect made visible.
No cohort in the output has a maximum months_on_book below 12.

Follow-up

Should a restructure inside 12 months count as bad in its own right? Argue both sides and say what you would actually ship.
A loan that prepaid in full at month 4 never had a chance to go 90 days past due. In or out of the denominator, and why?
The 2025-11 cohort is two points worse at month 12 than its neighbours. What three queries do you run before you call it a credit-quality change?

How do you prioritize tasks when managing multiple projects?

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

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 would you approach a project to forecast energy consumption for the next year?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

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

Given a dataset with sales data, how would you identify trends over time?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

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 ensure the reproducibility of your analysis?

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
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?

Test a referral rule when reviewers are a shared queue

Medium · interference · switchback · cluster randomisation

A proposed risk rule raises the share of ecommerce authorizations routed to manual review. Reviewers work a shared pool of queues serving both arms, so extra referrals from treatment lengthen the wait for control cases too. The current plan randomises by customer_id and reads decision latency plus matured fraud basis points. Explain why that design is biased and in which direction, propose a design that is not, and say what governs its power.

Approach

Name the violated assumption precisely: a unit's outcome depends on other units' assignments through the shared reviewer capacity, so the stable unit treatment value assumption fails. Customer-level randomisation then estimates a contrast between a degraded treatment and a degraded control, not between treatment and the status quo.
State the direction. Treatment pushes work into the shared queue, control absorbs part of that wait, so the measured latency difference understates the true effect of full rollout. The test can look acceptable while the rolled-out state is materially worse, which is the expensive failure mode here.
Move randomisation up to a unit that contains the interference. Either cluster-randomise whole queues or sites, or run a switchback that flips the rule for an entire queue over time blocks. Switchback is usually the better choice here because queue count is small and each queue serves as its own control, removing between-queue heterogeneity.
Specify the switchback concretely. Block length should be several times the queue sojourn time; discard a burn-in after each switch equal to the 95th percentile sojourn so carryover cases from the previous regime do not contaminate the new block; balance assignment within each day so the daily arrival pattern cannot correlate with arm.
Analyse at the randomisation unit. Aggregate to queue-block means, include queue and time-block fixed effects, and use randomisation inference or a wild cluster bootstrap rather than cluster-robust standard errors, which are anti-conservative with few clusters. Check residual autocorrelation between adjacent blocks; if it is material, widen the blocks or model it.
Separate the two readouts by maturity. Latency and referral precision at case close are available inside the test window; matured fraud basis points require at least 120 days of dispute maturity from the transaction month, so it is a deferred confirmatory read and must not be presented as a low number on immature cohorts.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the interference channel explicitly: reviewer capacity is fixed per queue per hour, arrivals are the sum of both arms, so control's wait is a function of treatment's assignment.
Choose a queue-by-four-hour-block switchback across 14 queues for 30 days, giving 14 * 6 * 30 = 2,520 blocks, with within-day balanced assignment and a burn-in equal to the 95th percentile sojourn discarded at each switch.
Compute power at the block level. With a residual block-level standard deviation of decision latency of 6 minutes after removing queue and day-of-week fixed effects, and half the blocks per arm, MDE = 2.8016 * sqrt(2 * 36 / 1260).
State the caveat that adjacent blocks are autocorrelated, so the effective block count is below 2,520 and the analytic MDE is a floor; estimate the inflation from historical block-to-block autocorrelation before committing.
Split the readout: latency and referral precision as the in-window primary, matured fraud basis points as a deferred read at 120 days with immature months marked incomplete rather than plotted.

Expected result: A queue-by-time-block switchback with burn-in exclusion and within-day balanced assignment, analysed on block means with queue and time fixed effects and randomisation inference. With 2,520 blocks and a 6-minute residual block standard deviation, the analytic MDE on decision latency is 2.8016 * sqrt(72 / 1260) = 2.8016 * 0.2390 = 0.67 minutes, stated as a floor pending the autocorrelation correction. Power is governed by block count and between-block residual variance, not by transaction volume.

Verify it yourself

An A/A switchback on historical data should produce block-level differences centred on zero with a standard deviation matching the residual block standard deviation used in the power calculation.
Plot the effect against time since the last switch. If it is not flat after the burn-in window, the burn-in is too short and carryover is still present.
Confirm that arm assignment is orthogonal to hour of day and day of week in the realised schedule, since queue load is strongly periodic.
Cluster count, not row count, should appear in the degrees of freedom of the final inference; if the standard error implies thousands of independent observations, the analysis is at the wrong grain.

Follow-up

How do you set the block length when the queue sojourn time itself changes under treatment?
You have 14 queues and 30 days. Compare a queue-level cluster design against a queue-day switchback on power and on what each can estimate.
The shared resource is capacity. What happens to your estimate if reviewers work faster when the queue is long?

Fraud losses appear to halve in recent transaction months

Medium · right censoring · development factors · maturity

A weekly chart attributes fct_card_dispute cases to the requested_at month of the linked fct_payment_authorization row. The two most recent months show the first-chargeback rate falling by half, and a risk rule shipped six weeks ago. Columns: dispute_id, auth_id, dispute_category, dispute_stage, opened_at, disputed_amount_minor, liability_shift_flag, outcome, net_loss_minor, resolved_at. Decide whether the rule worked, and produce the version of the chart you would sign your name to.

Approach

Separate the two dates explicitly. opened_at is when a case was filed, requested_at is when the transaction happened. Attributing by transaction month is the right causal choice and is exactly what makes the newest months structurally incomplete.
Measure the filing lag rather than assuming it: the distribution of opened_at minus requested_at over fully developed months, split by dispute_category, and the age at which around 95 percent of cases have arrived.
Build a development triangle of transaction month by months of development on cumulative case counts, and estimate age-to-age factors from the columns that are complete.
Develop the immature months with those factors and plot the result as an estimate with a visible band, kept visually distinct from the matured series rather than blended into it.
State the assumption the method needs: a stable development pattern across cohorts. A change in filing behaviour, merchant mix or the dispute team's own backlog breaks it, so inspect factor stability down each column before relying on the estimate.
Only then evaluate the rule, comparing pre-change and post-change cohorts at equal development age.

Follow-up

What leading indicator would you accept while the cohort matures, and what is its known bias?
How does liability_shift_flag change which disputes you should expect to see in the first place?
If the rule also blocked good transactions, where does that cost appear, and is any of it in this chart?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.

Day 1 — Design one test end to end on paper

Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.

Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.

Day 2 — Power arithmetic until it is automatic

Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.

Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.

Day 3 — Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem

Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.

Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.

Day 4 — Validity threats you can actually test for

Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.

Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.

Day 5 — When randomization is not available

Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.

Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.

Day 6 — The readout query

Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.

Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.

Day 7 — Present it to someone who will not read the appendix

Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.

Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.

Rigour against a deadline

Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.

Describe a time when you had to make a decision with incomplete data.

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

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

Tell me about a time you had to work with a difficult team member. How did you handle it?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Allocate one analyst-week across three competing risk requests

Medium · prioritisation · decision deadlines · stakeholder negotiation

Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.

Approach

Score each request on the decision it unblocks rather than on effort or on how loudly it arrived: what changes if it is late, and is that change reversible.
Separate deadline from value. The nine-day renewal is a hard, irreversible date with a bounded prize; the six-week cutoff has slack but a much larger downside if it ships unmeasured; the reserving number has no date but feeds external reporting, which is its own kind of hard.
Hunt for the cheap partial in each: a decline teardown restricted to the top merchants by declined value usually answers the contract question at a fraction of the full cut.
Sequence by hard date first, then by largest irreversible downside, and deliver the trade-off to all three sponsors in one message rather than three, so nobody negotiates privately against a version you told someone else.
Name what is dropped and who now owns that consequence, in writing, so the trade-off is visible rather than silently absorbed by you.

Follow-up

The credit sponsor escalates to your manager. What do you change, and what do you refuse to change?
How would you make this allocation reproducible so the next contested week is a rule application rather than a negotiation?