Interview guides · First National Bank

First National Bank Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Causal inference drills for First National Bank data scientist prep: diff-in-diff, matching, instruments, and the limits of observed data.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at First National Bank (FNB), you are at the intersection of advanced analytics and large-scale financial services. Your work directly influences how the bank manages risk, prices products, and enhances the customer experience for millions of users. You are not just building models; you are translating complex data into actionable business intelligence that keeps the bank competitive in a fast-paced digital landscape.

Coding rounds for this role are usually data-manipulation shaped rather than data-structure shaped: group-bys, joins, time windows, ranking within a partition. Confirm the format before spending a week on graph traversal.

Focus areas

Reconcile amounts in minor units and currency
Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost

Overview

The role requires a high degree of technical proficiency combined with a sharp business acumen. You will work within diverse teams—often collaborating with product managers, engineers, and financial analysts—to solve problems ranging from credit scoring and fraud detection to personalized marketing. It is a role for those who thrive on complexity and want to see their work have a tangible impact on the financial well-being of the bank’s client base.

FNB values candidates who understand the business side of banking. Be prepared to explain not just how your model works, but how it generates revenue or mitigates risk for the bank.

The First National Bank interview process

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

Initial Screening

Most candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.

What to demonstrate

Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal

How to prepare

Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered

Technical Assessments

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows

Case Study Presentation

A case has a fixed clock, and a good deal of what is being scored is how you spend it. Thirty to forty-five minutes buys one pass across the whole problem or a deep read of one part of it, and choosing between those is the work rather than a compromise forced on you. Announce the shape early: the structure you are using, the branch you think carries the decision, and what you are setting aside. An answer that is thorough for the first third and silent on the recommendation reads worse than one that is rougher throughout and lands.

What to demonstrate

Whether a visible structure appears in the opening minutes and survives the rest of the case
Whether the depth goes to the branch that carries the decision, rather than the branch you find most comfortable
Whether you say what you are leaving out and why, instead of quietly omitting it and hoping nobody asks

How to prepare

After each practice case, write down the branches you chose not to open and the reason for each, then check whether you said any of them out loud while the case was running. A branch you only cut privately reads to the interviewer as one you missed.
Redo a case you have already worked in half the time, deciding in advance which single branch you keep, then compare which version a listener would find more useful.
Write a two-sentence opening you can reuse, holding the restated question and your plan for the available time, and deliver it within the first ninety seconds of every practice run.

Behavioral Interviews

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.

Final Business Unit 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

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.

Averaging delinquency across a book that is growing

A loan three months old cannot be 90 days past due, so a portfolio with many recent originations reports a low blended 90+ rate purely from age mix. The blended rate falls fastest exactly when originations grow fastest, which is precisely when credit quality most needs watching, so the metric moves in the reassuring direction during the riskiest period. Only comparisons at equal months on book are valid, which is what a vintage or roll-rate view enforces.

Stopping an experiment the moment it crosses significance

Fix the sample size or duration before launch, or use a method built for continuous monitoring such as a sequential test, always-valid confidence intervals, or group-sequential boundaries. Repeatedly checking a fixed-horizon p-value against 0.05 pushes the real false-positive rate well above 5 percent.

Naming a model class before naming the deployment constraints

Set out the latency budget, the label delay, the retraining cadence, the interpretability requirement and the number of labelled examples, then pick the model that fits them. A boosted-tree answer to a problem where each decision must be explained to the affected user is a well-executed answer to the wrong question.

Questions & practice

Describe the steps you take to build and design a machine learning model from scratch.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

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

How do you evaluate the performance of a regression model in a banking context?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you handle data leakage in a predictive model?

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

Follow-up

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

Measure calibration of a twelve-month default probability from scratch

Hard · calibration · brier score · binning

fct_loan_application gives application_id, model_pd_12m, model_version, decision, funded_at and loan_id. fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, months_on_book, days_past_due and charge_off_flag. Define the outcome as ever 90 or more days past due, or charged off, by months_on_book = 12. Without sklearn or scipy, build an equal-count binned reliability table, the expected calibration error, the Brier score and its reliability, resolution and uncertainty components, and report the residual the binned identity leaves behind. Restrict to cohorts that have actually reached 12 months on book.

Approach

Build the label first and name the population it covers out loud: only funded loans have outcomes, so this measures calibration on the approved population. The declined region is unmeasured, and no binning scheme repairs that.
Restrict to applications whose loans have reached months_on_book = 12. A cohort observed at 8 months has a mechanically lower default rate and will read as systematic over-prediction that is really just immaturity.
Bin by equal count, deciles of model_pd_12m through a rank-based cut, not equal width. The PD distribution is heavily right-skewed, so equal-width bins put most of the mass in the first bin and leave the risky bins with single-digit counts whose observed rates mean nothing.
Per bin compute n, mean predicted, observed rate, and the binomial standard error sqrt(o(1-o)/n) so a gap can be read against noise. ECE is the count-weighted mean absolute gap between mean predicted and observed.
Compute Brier directly as the mean squared error, then reliability = sum of n_k (pbar_k - obar_k)^2 over N, resolution = sum of n_k (obar_k - obar)^2 over N, uncertainty = obar(1 - obar). Report residual = Brier - (reliability - resolution + uncertainty). That identity is exact only for discrete forecasts, so with binned continuous scores the residual is the within-bin spread of the score; a large one means the bins are too wide to support the decomposition.
Split by model_version. A mixed-version population can look well calibrated in aggregate while each version is biased in opposite directions.

Worked solution (45 min)

Reduce fct_loan_performance_monthly to one row per loan_id with the maximum days_past_due and any charge_off_flag over months_on_book 0 to 12, plus the maximum months_on_book observed, and keep only loans reaching 12.
Inner-join to approved and funded applications, and record how many approved applications were dropped for immaturity and how many decisions were declines that never enter the measurement at all.
Assign deciles with a rank-based cut on model_pd_12m, then aggregate n, mean predicted, observed rate and standard error per bin.
Compute ECE, Brier, reliability, resolution, uncertainty and the residual, and print all six.
Repeat the whole computation split by model_version and compare the per-version reliability against the pooled figure.

Expected result: A ten-row reliability table with n, mean predicted, observed and standard error; an ECE of a few tenths of a percentage point to a couple of points; a Brier score close to the uncertainty term, because a rare-event model has little resolution to subtract; and a residual small relative to the reliability term.

Verify it yourself

Bin counts sum to the filtered row count, and the count-weighted mean of bin observed rates equals the overall observed rate.
Uncertainty equals obar(1 - obar) computed directly, and reliability is zero on a synthetic input where observed is set equal to predicted in every bin.
The residual shrinks as the bin count rises from 5 to 20; if it does not, the label or the binning is wrong.
Multiplying every PD by 1.5 must raise reliability and ECE while leaving resolution, uncertainty and AUC unchanged, since equal-count bins are invariant to a monotone transform.

Follow-up

AUC is unchanged after a population shift but the reliability curve has moved. What happened, and what do you do about it?
How would you recalibrate without retraining, and what would you check afterwards?
The top decile shows observed default well above predicted. Is that a calibration problem or a policy problem?

Attribute chargebacks to transaction month without fanning out

Medium · fan-out · cohort attribution · maturity

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (30 min)

CTE denom: SELECT date_trunc('month', requested_at) AS txn_month, COUNT(*) AS settled_txns FROM fct_payment_authorization WHERE settled_at IS NOT NULL AND NOT is_reversal GROUP BY 1.
CTE numer: join fct_card_dispute to fct_payment_authorization on auth_id, filter dispute_stage to the four stages at or beyond first_chargeback, group by the same txn_month expression, count dispute rows.
LEFT JOIN numer onto denom on txn_month so months with zero disputes appear as zero rather than disappearing.
Derive the rate with a numeric cast and a status column driven by (txn_month + interval '1 month - 1 day') + interval '120 days' <= current_date.

Expected result: One row per transaction month with settled_txns, chargeback_cases, a rate in basis points, and a status of 'final' or 'incomplete'. The final months form a roughly flat series; the incomplete months at the right edge are visibly and correctly labelled rather than sloping to zero.

Verify it yourself

settled_txns for a given month is identical whether or not the dispute CTE is joined, which is the direct test that no fan-out occurred.
COUNT(DISTINCT auth_id) in the numerator is at or below the dispute row count; if they are equal, no authorization in the data carries two cases and the fan-out risk is latent rather than absent.
Every month flagged 'final' has its last day at least 120 days before the current date.
Attributing by opened_at instead shifts the series later and flattens the right edge, which demonstrates why the attribution key matters.

Follow-up

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

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.

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.

How would you structure a project if you were tasked with improving customer retention?

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

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?

Walk us through your approach to a pricing problem for a new banking product.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Given a set of graphs, what insights can you derive, and what business actions would you recommend?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

Follow-up

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

What are the common challenges when working with imbalanced datasets in fraud detection?

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
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.

Follow-up

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

Price a false decline when the label does not exist

Hard · proxy metrics · selection bias · randomised holdout

Your expected-cost threshold needs a figure for what a false decline costs beyond the margin on the blocked transaction. fct_payment_authorization records the decline, nothing records what the customer did next elsewhere, and declined transactions never produce a fraud outcome, so neither side of the error is directly observable. Propose the measurement: the proxy you would build from the tables you have, the design that yields an unbiased estimate for at least part of the score range, the bias in each, and the single sentence you would attach to the number when it reaches a pricing decision.

Approach

Write down what is unobservable and why. The counterfactual spend of a customer who was not declined, and the fraud label on any transaction the rule blocked, are both missing because of the decision itself. Missingness that depends on the decision is not fixed by matching on observed covariates.
Build the observational proxy anyway and be specific. For customers receiving a first risk-rule decline in a window, compare settled volume and active status over the following 30 and 90 days against customers matched on pre-period settled volume, tenure, segment and channel mix who attempted a comparable transaction and were approved. The bias runs one way: matching conditions on having attempted something that scored near the cutoff, and part of the declined group are genuine fraudsters whose disappearance is a saving rather than a loss, so the estimate overstates the damage.
Buy one unbiased local estimate. Hold a small random share of authorizations inside a defined risk_score band out of the decline rule and approve them, sizing the sample in advance from the expected fraud rate in that band so the cost of the experiment is known before it runs. The result is unbiased for that band only, and it is simultaneously the only source of fraud labels in the declined region.
Bound the extrapolation instead of hiding it. Run the holdout in two or three adjacent bands and report the spread. If the effect is flat across bands a constant is defensible; if it is steep, quote band-specific figures and decline to supply a single number.
Handle the window. Attrition after a decline can resolve over months, so a 90-day window truncates it and the randomised estimate is a lower bound on long-run damage at the same time as the observational version is an upper bound. Stating both directions is what makes the number safe to use.
Write the sentence that travels with the number: what it is (an estimate from a randomised holdout in one score band over a 90-day window), what it is not (a measurement anywhere else on the score range), and which way it is likely to be wrong.

Worked solution (40 min)

Define the decline cohort and the matched comparison cohort precisely, including matching variables and the pre-period window, and produce the 30-day and 90-day settled-volume difference.
Decompose the declined cohort into customers who never transact again and customers who transact less, since fraudsters concentrate in the first group and that split tells you how much of the estimate is contamination.
Write the holdout design: score band, sample share, expected fraud rate in band, expected cost of running it, and the run length needed to detect an effect large enough to change the cutoff.
Recompute p* = C_FP / (C_FP + C_FN) at the top and bottom of your estimated cost range and state whether the range changes the cutoff you would set.
Write the one-sentence caveat that will be quoted alongside the number in the pricing decision.

Expected result: Two numbers with opposite biases, an observational estimate labelled as an upper bound and a randomised in-band estimate labelled unbiased for that band only, plus a sensitivity table showing how p* moves across the range and an explicit statement of whether the residual uncertainty changes the decision.

Verify it yourself

If the cost range moves p* by less than the granularity at which the rule can actually be set, further measurement is not worth buying and that is the finding.
The observational estimate should exceed the randomised one in magnitude. If it does not, the matching is capturing something other than the effect of the decline and needs re-examining.
Removing customers with zero prior settled volume from both cohorts should shrink the observational estimate, since new-account fraud concentrates there.

Follow-up

Compliance and finance both object to deliberately approving transactions you believe are fraudulent. What is your answer, and how do you size the holdout?
Your interval spans the decision boundary. What do you recommend?
How would you detect that this number has gone stale?

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.

Ambiguous requests are the test

Most of the questions in this section reduce to one thing: can you be handed a vague request and come back with something useful? Prepare an example where the ask was underspecified, you chose an interpretation, and you said out loud which interpretation you chose. Describing how you narrowed the question matters more than the technique you eventually used.

What is your 5-year plan, and how does this role fit into that vision?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Tell us about yourself and your journey in data science.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

State honestly what your cutoff change actually contributed

Hard · impact attribution · swap set · counterfactual

Six months ago your recommendation moved a credit cutoff, using fct_loan_application and fct_loan_performance_monthly. Since then approval rate rose four points and the 12-month vintage 90-plus rate on affected cohorts is flat. In the same window the bureau changed a score attribute, marketing shifted channel mix toward broker, and the internal funding rate moved. Your performance review asks for impact in currency terms. Give the number you would stand behind, the counterfactual it rests on, and the part of the observed movement you would not claim.

Approach

Define the counterfactual before computing anything: the claim is not what happened after the change, it is what would have happened had the old cutoff scored the same applications, which means replaying the old threshold on the post-change population.
Build the swap set: applications the new cutoff approves that the old one declined, applications the old one approved that the new one declines, and everyone else held out as unaffected. Only the swap groups carry your effect. Note that the swap-out group has no outcome under the new rule, because those loans were never funded, so its forgone margin must be estimated from matched pre-change approvals rather than observed.
Price each swap group at months_on_book equal to 12 on the measure the cutoff was meant to move: interest and fees collected, minus net charge-offs, minus funding cost at the internal transfer rate.
Strip the confounders explicitly. Cohorts affected by the bureau attribute change are either recomputed on the old attribute or excluded; channel mix is held fixed by reweighting to the pre-change mix; funding cost is charged at the rate in force each month rather than one blended average.
State the residual you will not claim, with its size, and give a range rather than a point wherever cohorts have not yet reached 12 months on book.

Follow-up

The swap-in group is only 6 percent of applications. How does that change the way you present the number, and to whom?
What would you have needed to set up at launch to make this attribution clean, and why was a randomised band around the cutoff not used?