Interview guides · Farmers Insurance Group

Farmers Insurance Group Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Practice explaining analysis before a Farmers Insurance Group data scientist interview: the recommendation, the uncertainty, the follow-ups.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Farmers Insurance Group, you are positioned at the intersection of complex risk modeling and strategic business decision-making. You will play a vital role in transforming massive datasets into actionable insights that influence how one of the nation’s largest insurance providers manages risk, optimizes pricing, and enhances the customer experience. Your work directly impacts the financial stability of the organization and the security of the millions of policyholders who rely on the company.

Learn the economics of the product category before the loop. Marketplaces, subscription products and ad-supported products turn on different core quantities (match rate and liquidity, retention and churn, fill rate and yield) and fail in different characteristic ways.

Focus areas

Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost
Report only matured cohorts for loss metrics

Overview

The environment at Farmers Insurance Group is characterized by a balance of legacy expertise and modern analytical innovation. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams—including actuaries, product managers, and software engineers—to solve high-stakes problems. Whether you are refining predictive models for claims, optimizing marketing spend, or improving customer retention strategies, your contributions will be central to maintaining the company's competitive edge in a data-driven insurance landscape.

Prepare to demonstrate how your technical work translates into business value; at Farmers, your ability to explain complex models to non-technical stakeholders is just as important as your coding ability.

The Farmers Insurance Group interview process

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

Initial Screening

A screening call is a matching exercise run by someone who will not evaluate your statistics. They are checking that the work described on your resume is work you personally did, and that its scope matches the level the role is written for. Logistics get settled in the same half hour so nobody spends an interviewer's afternoon on a mismatch. The answer that fails is the one narrated in the plural. If every sentence is 'we built' and 'the team decided', there is nothing specific to write down about you. Name the piece that was yours, the decision you made inside it, and what changed after.

What to demonstrate

Whether the ownership implied by your resume survives one round of follow-up about who actually did which part
Whether your described scope (data size, stakeholders, what shipped) matches the seniority the role is written at
Whether timeline, location and compensation expectations make the rest of the loop worth scheduling

How to prepare

Rewrite your top three resume bullets in the first person singular, each with the decision you made and what moved afterwards, then say them out loud once so the 'we' does not return under pressure
Attach one number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where impact was never measured, say that plainly rather than inventing a figure
Settle your compensation range before the call and give it as a range with a reason behind it, such as current total comp or a competing timeline, instead of deflecting the question twice

Video Interviews

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 Assessment

Before anything else, this round is a reading test. You are given a small schema and a question phrased in business language, and most of the difficulty sits in the gap between them. Who counts as an active user, does a refunded order still count as an order, is that date column an event time or a load time. Weak answers start typing immediately and compute something precise about the wrong population. Strong ones pin the definition in one sentence, name the column that encodes it, then write the query. On a timed assessment with nobody to tell, write the definition in a comment anyway.

What to demonstrate

Whether an ambiguous term becomes a specific column and filter before any computation happens
Whether you read the schema for keys and cardinality rather than only for column names
Whether the result answers the question at the grain it was asked at, per user or per session or per day

How to prepare

Take three metrics you already use and write down the exact filter and exact grain behind each, then practise stating one of them in a single sentence out loud
On a schema you have never seen, spend the first minute writing what one row of each table means and which key it is unique on, then predict which joins can duplicate rows
Rehearse a version where the definition changes halfway through, and edit the query you have instead of starting over

Behavioral Discussions

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

Using written premium as the denominator of a loss ratio

Premium is written at inception and earned pro rata across the exposure period, so in a growing book written premium runs ahead of earned premium and the loss ratio comes out too low, with the error reversing when the book shrinks. The numerator has the mirror-image problem if it omits incurred-but-not-reported reserves, since recent accident periods then look profitable twice over. Both sides must refer to the same exposure period, which is what an accident-period view at a fixed development age enforces.

Counting authorizations instead of weighting them, and summing amounts across currencies

Declines skew toward high-value, cross-border and card-not-present transactions, so an unweighted approval rate can sit flat while approved value falls. Merchant retry logic also turns one declined purchase into several rows, inflating the denominator by an amount that varies by merchant and by decline reason. Amounts are held in the minor unit of the transaction currency and that unit is not always two decimals, since some currencies have none and some have three, so summing amount_minor across currencies produces a figure with no interpretation at all.

Over-explaining the method and under-explaining the implication

Lead with the answer and what you would do about it, then give the approach when asked. Roughly one sentence of method per three of implication is the right ratio for a stakeholder-facing answer; the interviewer already knows what a regression is.

Reaching for a model before the target metric exists

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

Questions & practice

Describe the bias-variance tradeoff in the context of predictive modeling.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.

Follow-up

What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?

Can you explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning techniques?

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.

Follow-up

How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?

What is your process for data wrangling when dealing with missing or noisy data?

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

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

Follow-up

Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?
What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?

How do you handle multicollinearity in a linear regression model?

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.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

Estimate a delinquency roll-rate matrix and project twelve months

Hard · roll rates · markov chain · survivorship

fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, as_of_month_end, months_on_book, delinquency_bucket, charge_off_flag, prepaid_in_full_flag and restructured_flag. Build a month-to-month transition matrix over the five delinquency buckets plus absorbing charged_off and prepaid states. Loans that stop appearing must be routed to an absorbing state rather than dropped. Project the current book forward 12 months by repeated matrix multiplication and report the projected share reaching charge-off. Handle restructured_flag explicitly, and name one place the Markov assumption fails on this data.

Approach

Build consecutive month pairs per loan by shifting as_of_month_end within loan_id, then verify the shifted value is exactly one month later. A gap is not a transition, it is an exit you have not resolved yet.
Resolve exits before counting anything. A loan whose last row carries charge_off_flag moves to charged_off, one carrying prepaid_in_full_flag moves to prepaid, and one that disappears with neither is a data question to raise rather than silently discard, because discarding it is survivorship that inflates every cure rate.
Count pairs into a 7 by 7 matrix and row-normalise. Assert every row sums to one and the two absorbing rows are the identity; a row that does not sum to one means exits were dropped.
Decide and state the restructure rule. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a dpd_60_89 to current move on a restructured loan is not a cure. Either give restructured loans their own state or carry the pre-restructure bucket, but do not let that move land in the cure cell.
Project by taking the current bucket distribution as a row vector and multiplying by the matrix twelve times. Report the charged_off entry, and report it again from an all-current starting vector so the reader can see how much of the projection comes from loans that are already delinquent today.
State the homogeneity failure plainly: transition rates depend strongly on months_on_book, so one pooled matrix applied to a book with a young mix understates early-life delinquency. If the mix is moving, estimate separate matrices by seasoning band.

Worked solution (45 min)

Sort by loan_id and as_of_month_end, shift to form (from_state, to_state) pairs, and flag pairs whose month gap is not exactly one.
For each loan's final row, assign the absorbing destination from charge_off_flag or prepaid_in_full_flag, and list loans that vanish with neither as an exception count to report.
Apply the restructure rule, then build the 7 by 7 count matrix with a cross-tabulation over ordered state categories and row-normalise it.
Assert row sums equal one and absorbing rows are the identity, then take the current month's bucket distribution as a row vector.
Multiply twelve times, report the charged_off component, and repeat from an all-current vector for comparison.

Expected result: A 7 by 7 row-stochastic matrix with identity rows for charged_off and prepaid, a current-to-current diagonal typically above 0.95, roll rates rising with bucket depth, and a 12-month projected charge-off share of a few percentage points from an all-current start and materially higher from the actual book.

Verify it yourself

Every row sums to one within floating-point tolerance, and both absorbing rows are exactly the identity.
No mass sits in cells that skip a bucket upward, such as dpd_1_29 to dpd_60_89 in one month; if there is, the pairs are not actually consecutive months.
The projection from an all-current start is strictly below the projection from the real book distribution.
Backtest by estimating on months up to t minus 12 and comparing the projected distribution with the realised one at t; a systematic optimistic gap points at dropped exits or at seasoning, not at noise.

Follow-up

How would you validate the projection against what actually happened, and over what window?
The cure rate out of dpd_30_59 rose five points last quarter. What are the candidate explanations and how would you separate them?
When would you prefer a vintage curve to a roll-rate projection, and why?

Monthly delinquency roll rates with honest exiting-account denominators

Hard · roll rates · window functions · self joins

From fct_loan_performance_monthly, compute month-over-month roll rates: for each as_of_month_end and delinquency_bucket, the share of loans in that bucket that are in a worse state at the following month end. Use this disposition convention and apply it without exception: charge-off is the terminal state one rank past dpd_90_plus, so a loan that charges off has rolled forward, not exited; loans that leave the book any other way — prepaid in full, sold, matured, or simply absent at the next month end — are exited. Bucket order is current, dpd_1_29, dpd_30_59, dpd_60_89, dpd_90_plus, then charged_off. Return from_month, from_bucket, accounts, rolled_forward, cured, stayed, exited and roll_rate, and show that the four dispositions sum to accounts on every row.

Approach

Map the five delinquency_bucket values to ranks 0 through 4 in a small inline VALUES list, and reserve rank 5 for charged_off, because 'worse' is an ordering statement and enum text does not sort that way reliably. Read charge-off from charge_off_flag on the next month's row rather than from delinquency_bucket, which keeps carrying whatever delinquency value the loan held when it was written off.
Use LEAD(as_of_month_end), LEAD(bucket_rank) and LEAD(charge_off_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id ORDER BY as_of_month_end), then verify the leading month end is exactly one month after the current one, since a loan missing a month would otherwise appear to cure or roll across a gap it never traversed.
Classify each loan-month into exactly one of four labels off the adjacent next row, whose rank is 5 when its charge_off_flag is true and its mapped bucket rank otherwise. rolled_forward: the next rank is strictly greater. cured: strictly lower. stayed: equal. exited: there is no adjacent next row at all, which is where prepayment, sale, maturity and a gap in the monthly history land.
Define rolled_forward as 'any strictly worse rank', not 'rank plus one'. Under normal monthly aging the only reachable worse state is the next bucket, so the two definitions coincide — except at charge-off, where a loan can go from dpd_60_89 straight to rank 5. A strict plus-one test leaves those loan-months matching no branch and breaks the exhaustiveness invariant.
Be explicit about why charge-off is a roll rather than an exit: routed to exited, dpd_90_plus has no worse state left, so its roll_rate is identically zero by construction — arithmetic, not a credit finding. At rank 5 the dpd_90_plus row reports roll-to-loss, which is the number a loss forecast actually consumes.
Aggregate by from_month and from_bucket and require that rolled_forward + cured + stayed + exited equals accounts on every row, which is the invariant that proves the classification is exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

Worked solution (45 min)

CTE ranks: an inline VALUES mapping of the five delinquency_bucket values to ranks 0 through 4, joined onto the monthly rows. Rank 5 is not in the map; it is assigned during classification.
CTE leads: add LEAD(as_of_month_end), LEAD(bucket_rank) and LEAD(charge_off_flag) partitioned by loan_id ordered by as_of_month_end.
CTE classified: derive next_rank as CASE WHEN next_charge_off_flag THEN 5 ELSE next_bucket_rank END, then a CASE expression producing exactly one label per loan-month — exited when the next month end is null or is not the current month end plus one month, otherwise rolled_forward / cured / stayed by comparing next_rank to bucket_rank.
Aggregate to from_month and from_bucket with COUNT(*) and four FILTER counts, then compute roll_rate as rolled_forward over accounts with a numeric cast.
Assert the exhaustiveness invariant in a final HAVING or a separate verification query before trusting any number.

Expected result: One row per month and originating bucket, with the four disposition counts summing to accounts on every row and roll_rate between 0 and 1. Roll rates climb across current, dpd_1_29, dpd_30_59 and dpd_60_89, because each successive bucket holds loans that have already failed to cure. Do not expect that climb to continue into dpd_90_plus: that bucket is a catch-all holding several monthly cohorts at once until the charge-off policy retires them, so its roll-to-loss rate is set by the policy horizon — under a 180-day policy roughly a third of the bucket rolls in a given month — and usually sits below the dpd_60_89 rate. Cure out of dpd_90_plus is well under ten percent.

Verify it yourself

rolled_forward + cured + stayed + exited equals accounts for every row, with no exceptions.
SUM(accounts) for a given from_month equals the count of loan rows at that month end, so no loan-month was dropped or counted twice.
Removing the adjacency test changes the cure and roll counts, and the size of that change is exactly the number of loans with a gap in their monthly history.
The rolled_forward count for from_bucket dpd_90_plus in month M is at least the number of loans whose first charge_off_flag = true row falls at month end M+1. If it is materially lower, charge-off is being routed into exited.
roll_rate for dpd_90_plus is strictly greater than zero in any month with charge-offs. A flat zero on that bucket across every month is the signature of charge-off classified as an exit, not of an unusually stable book.
No loan-month is counted as both rolled_forward and exited: a loan with a charged-off row at M+1 has an adjacent next row, so it can never reach the exited branch.

Follow-up

Project the next three months of dpd_90_plus inflow from these roll rates. What assumption does that projection make, and when does it break?
A restructure resets days_past_due to zero. What does that do to the cure rate out of dpd_60_89, and how would you separate a real cure from a reset?
Argue the other convention: prepayment in exited but charge-off also in exited, with roll rates reported only for the four non-terminal buckets. What does that series answer better, and what does it lose?
The charge-off policy changed from 180 to 120 days. Show where that appears in this table and what it does to the dpd_90_plus roll rate specifically.

Customers with no credit application, avoiding the NOT IN trap

Medium · null semantics · anti-join · scd type 2

Count current customers who have never submitted a credit application, broken out by segment. dim_customer is a slowly changing dimension type 2, so restrict to is_current = true, kyc_status = 'verified' and closed_at null. In fct_loan_application, customer_id is null for applicants who were not customers when they applied. Write the anti-join, return segment and customer_count, and state in one line what NOT IN (SELECT customer_id FROM fct_loan_application) returns against this table and why.

Approach

Pin the dimension to one row per customer first: is_current = true already guarantees that, but say so out loud, because forgetting it multiplies every count by the number of attribute versions a customer has accumulated.
Write the anti-join as NOT EXISTS with a correlated predicate on customer_id, which evaluates per row and is unaffected by nulls anywhere in the applications table.
Name the failure explicitly: NOT IN against a nullable column compares each candidate to a set containing NULL, the comparison yields UNKNOWN rather than TRUE, and the whole predicate is therefore never satisfied, so the query returns zero rows.
If NOT IN is required for some reason, add WHERE customer_id IS NOT NULL inside the subquery, which restores the intended semantics, and note that a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter is equally safe.
Group by segment and sanity-check the total against the unfiltered current-customer count minus the count of distinct applying customers.

Follow-up

Rewrite it as a LEFT JOIN with IS NULL and say when you would prefer that form to NOT EXISTS.
How does the answer change if you want customers who never applied as of a historical date rather than today?
The applications table has 40,000 rows with a null customer_id. What are those rows, and are they a data quality problem or a product fact?

How do you prioritize tasks when working on multiple projects with competing deadlines?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

Follow-up

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

Measure an underwriting automation programme without hiding cost

Medium · metric gaming · swap set · operations metrics

An operations programme aims to cut manual underwriting. The proposed metric is manual review rate: decided_by = 'manual' over applications with decision in ('approve','decline') in fct_loan_application. The team controls the referral rules recorded in policy_rule_hits. Explain how they can halve that metric in one release while making the book worse, then design the readout that catches it: primary metric, the cuts it must always be reported in, and the guardrails. Say what evidence you would require before declaring a batch of referrals safe to auto-decide.

Approach

Name the exploit precisely. Referrals can be converted to automatic declines by a rule change, which removes them from the numerator at no operational cost while they stay in the denominator, so the rate falls and applicants a human would have approved are rejected instead. Auto-approving the same population moves the metric identically with the mirror-image failure mode.
Refuse the bare rate as a primary. Make it conditional on outcomes: manual review rate measured at a held-constant approval rate within each model_pd_12m band, so a reduction is creditable only when the decisions themselves did not move.
Require fixed cuts on every report: by model_pd_12m band and by the rule identifier inside policy_rule_hits. A single blended operations number cannot be decomposed after the fact, and the decomposition is the entire diagnostic.
Set guardrails on the things the exploit disturbs: approval rate within each score band, the override rate where manual decisions disagree with the automated recommendation, and the vintage 90+ rate at months_on_book = 12 for the newly auto-decided population against the referrals of the prior regime.
Fix the evidence bar for retiring a referral rule: a shadow period where the rule fires and the case is still worked manually, recording what the automation would have decided, what the human decided, and, for the disagreement group alone, the realised performance. Agreement on the easy majority establishes nothing about the disputed minority.
State the conflict honestly rather than designing around it. The referral population exists because the model is least certain there, so automating it trades loss for cost by construction, and the readout's job is to price that trade rather than to make it disappear.

Worked solution (30 min)

Compute manual review rate for a recent month overall, then by model_pd_12m band, then by rule identifier extracted from policy_rule_hits.
For each rule, compute the approve share and decline share of the applications it touches, so the rules whose removal would actually change decisions are identified before anyone proposes removing them.
Simulate the exploit: reclassify one high-volume referral rule's applications as automatic declines, then recompute the blended rate and the band-level approval rates side by side.
Write the readout spec: the primary with its conditioning, the two mandatory cuts, the three guardrails, and the shadow-period evidence bar.

Expected result: A table in which the simulated rule change lowers the blended manual review rate materially while approval rate in the affected model_pd_12m bands falls at the same time, together with a readout spec that makes it impossible to publish the first effect without the second.

Verify it yourself

The simulated change lowers the manual review rate and the band-level approval rate together. If band approval rate is unchanged, that rule was not binding and its removal is genuinely free.
Rule-level counts reconcile to the blended rate once applications hitting several rules are counted once. A jsonb array of rule identifiers is the usual place this double-counts.
The newly auto-decided population and the prior manual referrals are compared at equal months on book, not at equal calendar dates.

Follow-up

The override rate falls to near zero after the change. Is that good?
How long must the shadow period run, given the outcome matures at twelve months on book?
The rule fires on 200 applications a month. What can and cannot be established at that volume?

Trailing thirty day volume per customer drops week over week

Hard · seasonality · day of week · window alignment

The trailing 30-day settled volume per active customer is down 7 percent against the same metric seven days earlier. Nothing shipped. You have fct_payment_authorization with requested_at, channel, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, plus dim_customer with is_current, kyc_status, onboarded_at and closed_at for the active denominator. Before anyone writes a retention narrative, decide how much of the 7 percent is calendar structure, and hand back a calendar-robust version of the comparison.

Approach

Do the window arithmetic first. Thirty days is four whole weeks plus two days, so exactly two weekdays appear five times and the other five appear four times. Sliding the window by seven days changes which two, and card-present and card-not-present volumes differ sharply by weekday.
Rebuild on a 28-day window, which contains exactly four of every weekday, and see how much of the 7 percent survives. That single change removes the weekday composition effect with no modelling and no assumptions.
Count the structural events inside each window: public holidays, and the billing anchor days that recurring authorizations cluster on. A window holding one fewer month boundary loses a block of recurring volume that has nothing to do with customer behaviour.
Decompose by channel, since recurring, card_present and ecommerce have different calendar signatures. A drop concentrated in recurring points at anchor-day placement; one spread evenly across channels does not.
Compare year over year at a 364-day lag rather than 365, which preserves weekday alignment, and only then read the residual.
Check the denominator on its own. Active customer counts on a trailing window carry their own calendar structure, and a ratio can move because either side moved.

Follow-up

Which window goes on the executive dashboard, and what do you give up by choosing it?
How would you handle a holiday that moves between years, so that a 364-day lag still misaligns it?
If a genuine 2 percent residual survives, what is the smallest cut that tells you whether it is breadth or depth?

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.

Getting an analysis acted on

Work that nobody used is a common and unflattering pattern in data careers, and interviewers probe for it. Have a story about an analysis that changed a decision, and be specific about how you got it in front of the person who could act. Also have one about work that went nowhere, with your reading of why.

Describe a situation where you faced a significant roadblock in a project; how did you overcome it?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.

Follow-up

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

What motivates you to work in the insurance industry specifically?

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

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?