Interview guides · Factual

Factual Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist prep for Factual candidates: drill A/B design, power and minimum detectable effect on original exercises.

The 60-second brief

The role of a Data Scientist at Factual is integral to driving data-informed decision-making and enhancing product offerings. As a Data Scientist, you will analyze vast datasets to extract actionable insights, develop predictive models, and contribute to the strategic direction of Factual's innovative location-based data solutions. Your work will directly impact how businesses utilize location data to improve customer engagement and operational efficiency.

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

Focus areas

Pick a randomisation unit that respects interference
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix
Define numerator, denominator and window precisely

Overview

At Factual, you will engage in complex problem-solving and collaborate with cross-functional teams, including engineering and product management, to design scalable algorithms and systems. This role is not just about crunching numbers; it’s about transforming data into narratives that influence products and services, ultimately enhancing user experience and driving business growth. You can expect to work on exciting projects related to geospatial data, data integrity, and analytics, making this a compelling opportunity for those passionate about data science.

The Factual interview process

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

Screening Call

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

Coding Assessment

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

Technical Interviews

Much of what gets scored here happens out loud while you type. Nobody can see your reasoning inside a half-written query, so five silent minutes read as being stuck even when they are not. State the plan in plain language first: which tables, what grain you are aggregating to, and the one filter that defines the population. Then write it. The narration doubles as insurance, because a wrong plan gets caught early and cheaply while a wrong query gets caught at the end with no time left to redo it. A timed statistics section, where one exists, is a separate test with its own clock.

What to demonstrate

Whether the query you write matches the plan you just described
What you do with a hint, meaning whether the correction gets absorbed or the first approach gets defended
Whether you can debug your own wrong output by reading the result set and naming which part of the query produced the anomaly

How to prepare

Solve three problems while screen-sharing into a recording, then watch it back and mark every stretch longer than thirty seconds where you said nothing
Practise compressing the plan into one sentence before typing, then check afterwards whether the finished query actually matched it
Time yourself on statistics questions that carry a business reading, such as what a confidence interval does and does not claim, rather than re-reading notes without a clock

Behavioral Interviews

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

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.

Slicing a flat experiment until a segment reaches significance

Testing one metric across twenty segments at a nominal 5% level produces a significant result about two thirds of the time when nothing is happening anywhere, and the segment that surfaces is by construction the one with the most favourable noise. The reported effect in that slice is then badly overstated, because selection on significance conditions the estimate on being large. What makes it dangerous rather than merely wrong is that a post-hoc segment always has a plausible story attached, so it survives the meeting. The controls are declaring the small number of segments of interest before launch, correcting across the ones tested, and treating anything discovered afterwards as a hypothesis that needs its own adequately-powered test rather than a finding.

Averaging per-user rates to produce a population rate

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

Optimising accuracy on a heavily imbalanced target

State the base rate first, then choose the metric from the relative cost of a false positive against a false negative: precision and recall at the operating threshold, PR-AUC, or expected cost. At a 1 percent positive rate, predicting the majority class for everyone scores 99 percent accuracy and is worthless.

Questions & practice

Describe a machine learning project you’ve worked on and the impact it had.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Simulate the false positive cost of repeated peeking

Medium · simulation · peeking · type i error

Quantify the cost of peeking. Simulate a two-arm experiment with no true effect: each arm accumulates Bernoulli conversions at a base rate of 0.10 up to 40,000 units per arm. Run a two-sided two-proportion z-test at alpha 0.05 at ten equally spaced interim points, and record whether the test ever crossed. Report the false positive rate over at least 10,000 replications, alongside the rate for a single look at the final sample only. Use a fixed seed and report a Monte Carlo standard error on both figures.

Approach

Generate each replication as two cumulative sums of Bernoulli draws, then read the interim points off the cumulative arrays. Regenerating data at each look would make the looks independent, which destroys exactly the dependence the exercise is about: later looks share data with earlier ones.
Use the pooled-variance two-proportion z: p_pool = (x1+x2)/(n1+n2), z = (p1-p2) / sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)), reject when |z| > 1.96. State that the normal approximation is fine here because the smallest look has roughly 400 expected conversions per arm.
Vectorise across replications rather than looping: draw a (reps, n) array of uniforms, threshold at 0.10, cumsum along axis 1 and slice the ten look indices. A per-replication loop at 10,000 by 40,000 is unnecessarily slow.
Record the any-cross indicator per replication, take the mean, and compute the Monte Carlo standard error as sqrt(p*(1-p)/reps) so the reported figure comes with its own precision.
Report the single-look rate in the same run as a control. If it does not land near 0.05, the bug is in the test statistic and not in the peeking argument.

Follow-up

Re-run with 40 looks instead of 10. Why does the curve flatten rather than continue rising linearly?
Among the replications that crossed, what is the mean observed lift, and why is it not zero?
What does an O'Brien-Fleming boundary or an always-valid confidence sequence change about this simulation, and what does each cost in power?

Audit a one-day event extract for structural defects

Easy · data quality · late arrival · pandas

You receive a one-day extract of fct_event as a DataFrame with event_id, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc, visitor_id, user_id, account_id, event_name, is_bot_flagged and surface. Write a function returning one row per data-quality rule with the rule name, the failing row count and the failing share of the extract. Cover at minimum: duplicate event_id, received_at_utc earlier than occurred_at_utc, occurred_at_utc later than the extract's maximum received_at_utc, account_id present while user_id is NULL, and rows whose occurred_at date differs from their received_at date. Do not drop rows; report only.

Approach

Compute the extract's own reference clock first: max(received_at_utc). Wall-clock now() is wrong here because the extract may be replayed days later, which would turn every row into a future-dated failure.
Express each rule as a boolean Series over the same index so the checks compose, then aggregate with .sum() and divide by len(df). Building a list of (name, mask) pairs keeps the rule set extensible and keeps one code path for counting.
For the duplicate rule, decide and state the convention: df.duplicated('event_id', keep=False).sum() counts every member of a duplicated group, df.duplicated('event_id').sum() counts only the surplus copies. Either is defensible; an unstated choice is not. The rest of this item assumes keep=False.
Treat received_at < occurred_at as clock skew, not corruption: occurred_at is client-supplied. Separate it from the date-mismatch rule, which is the one that actually breaks a daily metric keyed on occurred_at.
Know which rules imply which before you read the counts. A row whose occurred_at exceeds max(received_at_utc) has its own received_at no later than that maximum, so it is necessarily a clock-skew row as well: the future-dated mask is a subset of the skew mask, always. Neither is a subset of the date-mismatch mask, because skew of a few minutes inside one UTC date mismatches nothing.
Return a tidy DataFrame sorted by failing_share descending, and add a boolean column saying whether the rule should block publication, so the output is a decision rather than a list of numbers.

Worked solution (20 min)

Parse both timestamp columns with utc=True and assert the dtype, since a silently-object column makes every comparison string-wise and wrong.
Set ref = df['received_at_utc'].max() and build the five masks against it.
Assemble results as pd.DataFrame(rows) with columns rule, failing_rows, failing_share, blocks_publication.
Keep the masks addressable (a dict of name to Series) rather than only their sums, so the overlap between rules can be asserted rather than assumed.
Verify the function is pure: assert the input frame's shape is unchanged after the call.

Expected result: A DataFrame with one row per rule, failing_share equal to failing_rows divided by len(df) for every row, and the input frame returned unmodified. The rules overlap rather than partition the extract, and one containment is structural: every future-dated row is also a clock-skew row. The counts therefore must not be summed or presented as a total.

Verify it yourself

Plant violations deliberately and assert an exact expected vector rather than assuming one hit per rule. On a 10-row frame carrying two rows that share an event_id, one same-date skew row, one row whose occurred_at sits an hour past max(received_at_utc), one row with account_id set and user_id NULL, and one row whose occurred_at falls on the previous UTC date: duplicate_event_id is 2 under the keep=False convention, clock_skew is 2 (the planted skew row plus the future-dated row, which cannot avoid tripping it), future_dated is 1, orphan_account is 1, date_mismatch is 1.
Assert the containment directly rather than by counting: (future_dated_mask & ~clock_skew_mask).sum() is 0. A non-zero value means the reference clock was not max(received_at_utc).
Feed a clean frame and confirm all counts are 0 and no rule errors on empty masks.
Confirm len(input) is identical before and after, since the deliverable is a report and not a cleaned frame.

Follow-up

The date-mismatch count is 2.1 percent on this extract. What late-arrival rule would you write for a daily metric, and how many days would you hold the number open?
Duplicate event_id values appear only on the 'core_action_completed' event. What upstream cause would you check before deduplicating?
Which of these rules should fire an alert at the pipeline, and which should only appear in a weekly review?

How would you implement a web scraper to extract data from a website?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

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?

Explain the time complexity of your solution.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
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?

Find reactivation gaps in account paid-period history

Hard · gaps-and-islands · window-functions · subscriptions

fct_subscription_period holds account_id, subscription_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, period_status and change_reason. A mid-period plan or seat change closes one row and opens another, so a single continuous paid tenure is often many rows, and an account may hold two overlapping subscriptions. Collapse rows with period_status in ('active','past_due') into continuous tenures per account, treating gaps of three days or less as continuous. Return account_id, tenure_start, tenure_end, and for every tenure after the first, the gap in days that preceded it.

Approach

Filter to paid rows only: period_status IN ('active','past_due'). Trialing periods are not tenure, and including them turns every trial that never converted into a one-period tenure followed by a fake churn.
Order by period_start_utc and take a running maximum of all prior ends: MAX(period_end_utc) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND 1 PRECEDING). Those three columns are the only stable ordering this schema exposes, so check first that they are unique within an account; if rows tie on all three, the island numbering is order-dependent between runs and you need a real row key before the result is reproducible.
LAG on its own is wrong here because with overlapping or nested periods the immediately preceding row by start date is not the one that ends latest, so the running maximum is the part that cannot be shortcut.
Flag a new island when prior_max_end IS NULL OR period_start_utc > prior_max_end + interval '3 days', then number islands with a running SUM of the flag over the same ordering and an explicit ROWS frame.
Group to (account_id, island) taking MIN(period_start_utc) and MAX(period_end_utc), then LAG(tenure_end) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY tenure_start) to compute the preceding gap in days for every tenure after the first.
Sanity-check with change_reason, which is the only lineage this schema carries: list its distinct values first, then confirm that rows recording a plan or seat change sit inside a tenure rather than opening one, and that every tenure after the first opens on a row whose reason records a restart rather than an ordinary renewal. Do not reconcile against a churn timestamp on dim_account, which this schema does not define; and where such a column does exist, a cancellation timestamp records when the request was made and routinely sits weeks before the period it ends.

Worked solution (35 min)

Find an account with a known mid-period upgrade and dump its period rows to use as the trace case.
Check that (period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id) is unique per account, since the whole ordering rests on it.
Write the paid-rows CTE and the running MAX with the explicit frame.
Add the island flag and the running SUM, then verify the trace account yields one island.
Group to tenures and add the LAG-based gap in days.
List the distinct change_reason values, then count accounts with more than one tenure and compare against the count of accounts carrying a restart-flavoured reason anywhere in their history.

Expected result: One row per (account_id, tenure). An account with a continuous history returns a single row with a NULL preceding gap. Every non-first tenure has gap_days strictly greater than 3 by construction.

Verify it yourself

No two tenures for the same account overlap or touch within the grace window.
MIN(tenure_start) per account equals MIN(period_start_utc) per account in the filtered input.
The account with a known mid-period upgrade produces one tenure, not two.
(period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id) has no duplicates within an account; if it does, say how many accounts are affected before reading the output.
The share of accounts with more than one tenure is small; if it is most accounts, the status filter or the grace window is wrong.

Follow-up

Why three days of grace? What do 0 and 30 days each do to the count of accounts classed as reactivated?
An account runs two concurrent subscriptions for different teams. One tenure or two, and what does the revenue reader expect?
How would you turn these tenures into a monthly gross logo churn series without double-counting an account that churned and returned in the same month?

How would you estimate the number of coffee shops in a city using data?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you prioritize your tasks when working on multiple projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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 validate the accuracy of geolocation data?

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.
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?
What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?

If tasked with improving data quality in a dataset, what steps would you take?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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?

Discuss your approach to designing an A/B test for a new feature.

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

What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
How would you handle interference between treated and control units?

Explain the differences between supervised and unsupervised learning.

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?

Measure whether self-serve help actually answered the question

Medium · proxy metrics · bias · support

A help widget opens in-product. Leadership asks for the percentage of users who got their answer. You have fct_event (event_name, user_id, session_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, properties JSONB carrying article_id), fct_session, and a support ticket table joined on user_id. Nothing records whether the answer was correct or whether the user was satisfied, and no such field is being added. Propose the metric you would publish, state the proxy plainly, name the direction and rough size of its bias, and say which decisions it can and cannot support. Deliverable: the definition plus the bias statement.

Approach

Say first that the target quantity is unobserved and will stay unobserved: nothing in the stream distinguishes a user who was helped from one who gave up, and both leave the same trace, so every candidate metric here is a proxy and the only question is which bias you prefer.
Build the proxy to remove the largest identifiable error: among widget-open sessions, the share with no ticket from that user within 72 hours and at least one is_core_action = TRUE event after the widget opened in the same session. The downstream action requirement strips out most of the silent abandonment that a no-ticket rule alone scores as success.
State the residual bias with a direction and a bound: it still over-counts, because a user who gave up and went elsewhere files no ticket and may still complete an unrelated core action later in the session; bound it using the observable population of widget-open sessions that end within two minutes with no further event.
Publish a directly-measured companion with its own weakness in the same sentence: article thumbs up/down reported with its response rate, and the note that a single-digit response rate missing non-randomly toward annoyed users is exactly why it cannot be the headline.
Write the use statement, because a proxy without one gets reused for the wrong decision: valid for ranking articles against each other and for detecting a week-on-week break, invalid as an absolute deflection rate or as an input to a cost-saved figure.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the unobservable target in one sentence with the observable set beside it, so the gap is visible on the page rather than assumed away.
Define the published proxy with exact numerator and denominator, including the session scoping of the downstream core action.
Bound the bias from data you already have: compute the share of widget-open sessions ending within two minutes with no further event.
Publish the thumbs signal beside it with its response rate and the direction of its missingness.
Write the two-line use statement covering what the number supports and what it does not.

Expected result: A named proxy with numerator and denominator, a stated bias direction (over-counts success) with an observed magnitude bound, and an explicit list of the decisions the number does and does not support.

Verify it yourself

The proxy and the raw no-ticket rate should differ by roughly the abandonment share computed in step three. If they are nearly identical, the downstream-action requirement is not binding and adds nothing.
A change in support hours or ticket-form availability moves the no-ticket rate with no change in help quality, so the series must carry annotations for support operational changes.
Sessions with consent_state = 'denied' cannot be joined forward to a user_id and therefore cannot enter this metric at all; the denominator definition has to say so.

Follow-up

How would you validate this proxy once, and what would you do if the validation said it over-counts by 20 points?
Support asks for a dollars-saved number from this metric. What do you say, and what would you need before saying anything else?
Ticket volume drops the week support hours change. How do you keep that out of the series?

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

Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.

Deliverable: A five-item sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area

Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted improvement in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed next to the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

Your part, not the team's

Most data work is done by groups, so an interviewer has to work out which piece was yours. An answer that runs on 'we' for several minutes gets interrupted with a question about what you personally did, and by then the answer sounds defensive even when it is true. Mark your own contribution as you go, and name the parts that belonged to someone else instead of leaving them ambiguous. Keep a few specifics back as well, like the name of the metric or who actually objected, so a probe can be answered with something you had not already said.

What do you value most in a team environment?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

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

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?