Interview guides · Fanduel

Fanduel Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Fanduel data scientist prep on data pitfalls: selection bias, target leakage, and checking an outlier's provenance before you drop it.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Fanduel, you are at the intersection of high-stakes sports entertainment and complex predictive modeling. You will work within an ecosystem characterized by massive data velocity, where your ability to extract actionable insights directly influences product features, customer engagement, and the underlying algorithms that power the industry-leading Fanduel platform.

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
Size an experiment before anyone launches it
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

Your work will not exist in a vacuum; you will be instrumental in designing experiments that refine user experiences and building machine learning models that optimize operations. Whether you are focusing on experimentation, personalization, or predictive analytics, your contributions directly impact how millions of users interact with sports and gaming. You will navigate a fast-paced, high-growth environment where technical rigor is balanced with a deep understanding of the customer journey.

The Fanduel interview process

Fanduel candidates report 5 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Resume Review

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

Remote Screening

An extra round usually exists because something is still open after the standard loop: a skill the earlier interviews did not sample, a level decision, or two interviewers who disagreed. It is rarely a rerun of what you already did well. Ask the recruiter who you are meeting, what function they sit in, and how long the session runs. That is an ordinary scheduling question, and the answer changes what you should prepare. What separates a strong candidate here is treating the round as a fresh evaluation with its own bar, rather than assuming earlier performance carries you through or sinks you.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can answer well on ground the earlier rounds did not cover, without leaning on what you already said to someone else
Consistency of the facts in your stories: the same sample size, timeframe, team size and scope of your own role as in earlier conversations
How you handle an unfamiliar format live, including whether you ask what kind of answer is wanted before producing one

How to prepare

Ask the recruiter for the interviewer's function, the length, and whether to expect a coding surface, a discussion, or a presentation. Preparing for a 30 minute conversation with a partner team is not the same work as preparing for a 60 minute technical block.
Write out what each earlier round actually covered, then list the two or three areas nobody probed. That gap is the most likely subject of the extra round.
Re-read the numbers in the project stories you have already told, so a second telling does not quietly contradict the first.

Technical Deep-Dive

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

Live Interview

An added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact

How to prepare

Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.

Final Team Interviews

A loop is not scored one interview at a time. The people you meet compare notes afterwards, usually in a meeting you are not in, and the outcome turns on what each of them can say about you when asked. That rewards something other than survival: every room needs one specific thing worth repeating, and none of them can contradict another. The common way to lose is to tell the same project four times with different numbers in it, or to be uniformly fine in a way that leaves nobody with anything to argue for.

What to demonstrate

Whether your account of a project survives being told twice, with the same scale, the same metric definition and the same numbers each time
Whether each interviewer leaves with one concrete claim they could make on your behalf later, rather than an absence of complaints
Whether a question you already answered in an earlier room gets the same answer at the same depth, without visible impatience

How to prepare

Write a one-page fact sheet for your two or three main projects that fixes the numbers you will quote: rows of data, the metric as a single sentence, the effect you measured and how long the work took. Say them aloud from the sheet until they come out identical every time
For each kind of room you expect, decide the one sentence you want that interviewer repeating in a debrief, then check during the mock that you said it outright instead of implying it
Rehearse answering the same project question twice in one sitting, the second time as though you had not just answered it, because the thing that needs fixing is the flatness that creeps into a repeated story

Where candidates lose points

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.

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.

Solving silently instead of narrating the reasoning

Say which branch you are taking and why you chose it over the alternative, for example checking the denominator first because it changes what the comparison means. A correct answer that arrives with no visible path scores below a rigorous one that needed a hint.

Accepting a metric definition without asking about the denominator

Pin down the denominator, the eligibility filter and the time window before computing anything: conversion rate per session, per user, per eligible user and per new user are four different numbers with different behaviour. Restate the definition in one sentence and get agreement before you analyse.

Questions & practice

Describe a personal project where you applied data science to solve a specific problem.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?

What machine learning algorithms are you most comfortable with, and when would you choose one over another?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Explain the bias-variance tradeoff in the context of model performance.

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.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.

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.

Worked solution (30 min)

rng = np.random.default_rng(seed); for memory, batch the replications in chunks and accumulate the any-cross count across chunks.
Per chunk: draw (chunk, 40000) uniforms per arm, x = (u < 0.10).cumsum(axis=1), slice columns at indices 3999, 7999, ..., 39999.
Compute the ten z statistics vectorised over the chunk, take crossed = (np.abs(z) > 1.96).any(axis=1).
Aggregate: peek_rate = total_crossed / reps; single_rate = mean of |z_final| > 1.96; mc_se = sqrt(p*(1-p)/reps) for each.

Expected result: The single-look rate lands at 0.05 within about 0.005 at 10,000 replications. The ten-look rate lands near 0.19, which with 10,000 replications has a Monte Carlo standard error of about 0.004, so anything in roughly 0.18 to 0.20 is consistent and anything near 0.40 indicates independent redraws.

Verify it yourself

The single-look control recovers 0.05 within two Monte Carlo standard errors; if it does not, the z statistic is wrong and the headline number is meaningless.
The crossing rate is monotone in the number of looks: 1 look near 0.05, 2 near 0.08, 5 near 0.14, 10 near 0.19.
Halving the base rate to 0.05 leaves the peeking rate essentially unchanged, since the result is about the test's random walk and not about the conversion level.
Re-running with the same seed reproduces the figure exactly.

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?

Paying accounts with no active seat in 28 days

Medium · anti-join · null-semantics · retention-risk

dim_account holds account_id, account_type, lifecycle_status, seats_licensed. fct_event holds account_id, user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, and its account_id is NULL for every signed-out and pre-signup event. Find accounts with lifecycle_status = 'active' and account_type <> 'internal' that had no distinct user complete a core action in the trailing 28 days. Return account_id, seats_licensed and days since that account's most recent core action, with NULL where the account has never emitted one. Order by seats_licensed descending.

Approach

Build the recent-activity set first: fct_event rows with is_core_action = TRUE, occurred_at_utc >= now() - interval '28 days', and an explicit account_id IS NOT NULL. Making the NULL exclusion explicit in the CTE is what lets you reason about the anti-join afterwards.
Express the exclusion with NOT EXISTS (correlated on account_id) or a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL guard. Do not use NOT IN against this column: it is nullable, and SQL's three-valued logic turns the whole predicate UNKNOWN, returning zero rows.
Compute last-seen separately as MAX(occurred_at_utc) per account over all history, LEFT JOINed on, so an account that has never emitted a core action (NULL) is distinguishable from one that went quiet six weeks ago. Those two cases have different causes and different owners.
Rank by seats_licensed, or better by the account's current mrr_cents_constant_fx if you are allowed the subscription table, because a silent fifty-seat account is a renewal conversation and a silent one-seat account is noise.
Before shipping, check whether the never-seen group is a cluster by signup date or surface. A block of accounts with no events at all is usually an instrumentation gap, not a set of customers who stopped using the product.

Worked solution (25 min)

Count NULL account_id rows in fct_event over the window so you know the trap is live in this data rather than hypothetical.
Write the active-account spine and the 28-day activity CTE.
Write the anti-join with NOT EXISTS, then deliberately run the NOT IN version and record that it returns zero rows.
Add the all-time MAX(occurred_at_utc) LEFT JOIN and derive days_since as a date difference.
Split the output into 'quiet' and 'never seen' and eyeball the never-seen group for a shared signup window or surface.

Expected result: One row per silent active account with seats_licensed and days_since_last_core_action, ordered by seats_licensed descending. Accounts that never emitted a core action show NULL and are reported as a separate group rather than as the worst churn risks.

Verify it yourself

Silent accounts plus accounts with at least one active user equals the total count of active non-internal accounts.
The NOT IN variant returns zero rows, which is the demonstration that a NULL is present.
No account_id appears twice in the output.
Every days_since_last_core_action is either NULL or greater than 28.

Follow-up

How would you distinguish a genuinely idle account from one whose events lost their account_id after an instrumentation change?
Would you count on fct_event.account_id or resolve user_id through dim_user instead, and what does each choice miss?
Licensed-seat utilisation is the continuous version of this. How would you turn this boolean into that ratio?

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.

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 do you prioritize your work when faced with multiple competing data requests?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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?

Define success for halving the free trial length

Hard · monetisation · cohort horizon · trials

A proposal cuts the free trial from 30 days to 14. Trial-to-paid conversion is defined on fct_subscription_period: numerator, subscription_id whose first row with is_first_paid_period = TRUE has period_status IN ('active','past_due') and period_start_utc no later than 14 days after trial end; denominator, subscription_id whose first row has period_status = 'trialing' and period_start_utc in the cohort week. dim_account (account_id, account_created_at_utc, signup_surface) is also available and joins to fct_subscription_period on account_id. Explain why conversion rate alone cannot decide this, define the metric that can, and state the horizon and lag your readout needs. Deliverable: the decision metric and the readout schedule.

Approach

Show the incomparability numerically before arguing about it: at a fixed calendar readout date, a larger share of the 14-day arm's cohorts have completed trial end plus 14 days plus settlement, so the short arm leads mechanically and the lead shrinks as both arms mature.
Fix the censoring first, and do not mistake a rescaling for a fix. The given conversion rate already has trial starts as its denominator, so 'paid accounts per 1,000 trial starts' is that same ratio multiplied by 1,000 and answers nothing new. What the censoring needs is a fixed cohort age: read both arms at account_created_at_utc plus 60 days, which clears the long arm's full 30 + 14 + 3 = 47-day path to a settled first payment, so neither arm is censored at readout.
Then move the denominator upstream, which is a separate fix and the only one that catches a higher share of a smaller population: paid accounts per 1,000 dim_account rows created in the cohort week. Precondition — this diverges from the conversion rate only when trial length is visible before the trial starts, on pricing pages, in ads or in the signup flow. If the arms are assigned at trial start and nothing upstream differs, trial starts per 1,000 new accounts is equal across arms by construction and the two metrics are the same comparison rescaled. Report that ratio per arm and say which regime you are in rather than assuming one.
Add the leg neither denominator can see: a shorter trial converts users who had less time to reach activation, so read month-3 gross revenue churn and week-4 retention of the converted cohort, and read activation at trial day 7 to see whether the converted population changed composition.
Audit 'past_due' before comparing, since the definition counts it as converted: report the rate with and without it per arm, because a gain that sits entirely inside past_due is a billing artefact rather than a conversion effect.
Be explicit that the twelve-month consequence is not observable inside a planning cycle: pre-register that the decision is made on the 60-day metric, that the twelve-month cohort read will be published as a check, and what action follows if the two disagree.

Worked solution (35 min)

Tabulate, at a fixed calendar readout date, the share of each arm's cohorts that have completed trial end plus 14 days plus 3 days of settlement, and show the gap.
Define the decision metric as paid accounts per 1,000 dim_account rows created in the cohort week, evaluated at account_created_at_utc plus 60 days for both arms, and write the 30 + 14 + 3 = 47 arithmetic that justifies 60 as the common clock.
Report trial starts per 1,000 new accounts per arm beside it, so the reader can see whether the upstream denominator is doing any work in this test or whether it is arithmetically pinned to the conversion rate.
Compute the earliest honest readout date from the enrolment window: 60 days after the last account creation in the window plus a 3-day settlement lag, with no partial-cohort comparison permitted before it.
Add the quality leg: month-3 gross revenue churn, week-4 retention of converted accounts, and day-7 activation per arm.
Report the conversion rate with and without past_due per arm, and state which version the decision uses.

Expected result: A decision metric stated as paid accounts per 1,000 new accounts at a fixed 60-day cohort age measured from account creation, the trial-start rate published per arm so it is explicit whether that denominator change carries any information here, a readout date computed from the enrolment window, and at least two quality metrics capable of overturning a conversion-rate win.

Verify it yourself

Both arms must have identical elapsed time at readout: compute min and max of (readout_date minus account_created_at_utc) per arm and confirm the two ranges match.
Trial starts per 1,000 new accounts must be reported per arm. If that ratio is equal across arms, the conversion rate and the per-new-account metric are the same comparison rescaled and cannot diverge — so never present them as two independent confirmations. Only a gap in that ratio gives the per-new-account metric information the conversion rate does not carry.
The past_due share of the numerator should be similar across arms; a gap there is a payment-failure effect and does not belong in a conversion claim.

Follow-up

What happens to a user who would have converted on day 20, and how would you detect that population in the data?
The short arm has lower day-7 activation but higher conversion. Reconcile those two facts into one story.
What randomisation unit do you use here, and what goes wrong with the obvious alternatives?

Tell a pipeline outage from a collapse in usage

Medium · pipeline-failure · instrumentation · event-volume

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Suggested practice checklist

For 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.

The project you argued against

Saying no well is a senior skill and it is rarely rehearsed. Think of a time you told someone their analysis was not worth doing, or that the experiment could not answer their question at the sample size available. Explain what you offered instead. Refusal without an alternative reads as obstruction rather than judgement.

Describe a time you had to explain a complex technical finding to a non-technical stakeholder.

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.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Walk me through your resume and highlight the experiences most relevant to this role.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

What did you decide not to do, and why?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Turn an ambiguous onboarding question into a measurable metric

Easy · scoping · metric definition · stakeholder

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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