Interview guides · GlobalFoundries

GlobalFoundries Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist prep for GlobalFoundries: practice defining a product and business analytics metric, picking its guardrails and defending the tradeoff.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at GlobalFoundries, you sit at the intersection of cutting-edge semiconductor manufacturing and advanced analytical problem-solving. This role is pivotal for driving operational excellence across the company’s global fabrication facilities. By transforming vast streams of sensor data and production telemetry into actionable insights, you directly influence manufacturing yields, equipment reliability, and process optimization.

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
Turn a vague request into a measurable question
Define numerator, denominator and window precisely

Overview

Your work will involve navigating the high-stakes environment of semiconductor production, where small changes in data-driven decision-making can lead to significant improvements in efficiency and cost reduction. You will work alongside process engineers and domain experts to build predictive models, design robust experimentation frameworks, and solve complex technical challenges. This position is ideal for a practitioner who thrives in a data-rich, industrial context and wants to see their models have a tangible impact on the physical production of silicon chips.

The GlobalFoundries interview process

GlobalFoundries candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 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 Assessment

This round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.

What to demonstrate

Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it

How to prepare

Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither

Deep-Dive Technical Interviews

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

Where candidates lose points

Comparing cohort retention curves of different maturities, or building the curve from users who are still present

A cohort four weeks old has no week-8 value, so an average taken across cohorts silently drops young cohorts from the later columns and keeps them in the earlier ones. The curve then bends upward at the tail, and the reading that 'retention is improving over time' is an artefact of which cohorts survived to be measured. The same error appears in the denominator when retention is computed over users active in the current period rather than over the full original cohort, which conditions on survival and guarantees a flattering number. The fix is a triangle: fix the cohort at signup, bound every window on both sides, and only compare cells where every cohort has had the full elapsed time, publishing the rest as blank rather than as a partial average.

Reading a pooled rate that moved because the mix moved, not because any behaviour changed

A pooled conversion rate is a weighted average, and a shift in the weights can move it in the opposite direction to every one of its parts. A paid campaign that brings low-converting traffic drops overall signup conversion even if desktop, mobile web and app conversion each rose that week, which is Simpson's paradox and it is the single most common cause of an inexplicable dashboard move. The discipline is to decompose before explaining: recompute the rate holding last period's segment weights fixed, and compare that counterfactual to the actual, so the mix effect and the rate effect are separated numerically rather than argued about. Segment on the dimensions that actually reweight, which in this domain are almost always device_type, referrer_channel, country and new versus returning.

Never asking what decision the analysis will inform

Open with who makes the decision, what the options are, and by when. The answer determines the precision you need, the segments worth cutting, and whether an observational read suffices or an experiment is required.

Dropping rows with missing values without naming the mechanism

Say whether the values are missing at random, missing by a known process, or missing in a way that depends on the outcome, and handle them accordingly. Deleting incomplete rows silently redefines the population whenever missingness correlates with what you are measuring.

Questions & practice

How do you validate the integrity of your data before feeding it into a machine learning pipeline?

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.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.

Follow-up

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

Rebuild per-visitor ordering without groupby convenience methods

Easy · pandas · vectorisation · window logic

You have a DataFrame of 2 million fct_event rows with visitor_id, occurred_at_utc and event_id, unsorted and containing duplicate timestamps within a visitor. Produce three new columns: event_rank, the 1-based position of the event within its visitor ordered by occurred_at_utc; seconds_since_prev, the gap to that visitor's previous event, NULL for the first; and is_first_for_visitor. You may use sort_values, shift, cumsum, numpy and boolean masking. You may not use groupby.transform, groupby.apply, groupby.cumcount, groupby.rank or merge_asof. Break timestamp ties on event_id.

Approach

Sort once by ['visitor_id', 'occurred_at_utc', 'event_id'] and reset the index. The whole exercise reduces to row arithmetic on a sorted frame, and the tiebreak on event_id is what makes the result reproducible across runs.
Mark visitor boundaries with is_first = df['visitor_id'].ne(df['visitor_id'].shift()). This is the single fact every other column derives from.
Compute seconds_since_prev as the diff of the timestamp column, then overwrite it with NaT/NaN wherever is_first is True. The shift crosses the boundary between visitors and will otherwise hand the first row of each visitor the last event of the previous one.
Build event_rank from a running counter that resets at boundaries: take a global cumulative position (np.arange(len(df))) and subtract, per row, the global position at which that visitor started. Get the start position by forward-filling the positions where is_first is True, which is a cumsum-free reset and is O(n).
Verify against the forbidden method once, as a test rather than as the implementation, and confirm the two agree on every row.

Follow-up

The frame does not fit in memory. How does your approach change if you can only process one visitor-partitioned chunk at a time?
occurred_at_utc is client-supplied and sometimes runs backwards within a visitor. Does your seconds_since_prev go negative, and should it?
How would you extend this to reset the counter at every change of surface as well as visitor?

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?

Explain the difference between rank, dense_rank, and row_number in a practical scenario.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

Given two tables, how would you optimize a complex join to improve query performance?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.

Follow-up

What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Describe how you would handle missing values or data gaps when querying large production datasets.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

Pair flow starts to completions within a thirty-minute bound

Medium · event-streams · conditional-aggregation · flow-funnel

fct_event holds event_id, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, surface, app_version. Using only rows where event_name is 'flow_started', 'flow_completed' or 'error_shown', compute the daily core-flow completion rate by surface and app_version. Numerator: distinct flow_instance_id whose flow_completed occurs within 30 minutes of its flow_started with no error_shown for the same instance in between. Denominator: distinct flow_instance_id with a flow_started that day. Report rows with a NULL flow_instance_id as a separate coverage count, not inside either side.

Approach

Collapse the stream to one row per flow_instance_id using conditional aggregation: MIN(occurred_at_utc) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_started') AS started, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_completed') AS completed, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'error_shown') AS first_error. This makes the 'first' semantics explicit and avoids a self-join entirely.
Apply the predicates on that single row: completed IS NOT NULL AND completed <= started + interval '30 minutes' AND (first_error IS NULL OR first_error > completed). Note the last clause encodes 'in between' literally, so an error surfaced after a successful completion does not disqualify the attempt.
Bucket by started::date, surface and app_version. Splitting by app_version is not decoration: a completion-rate regression is nearly always confined to one client build, and a pooled daily rate hides it behind the installed base.
Count NULL flow_instance_id rows as a separate coverage figure. They cannot be attributed to an attempt at all, so they belong in neither numerator nor denominator, and their share tells you how much of the rate is unmeasurable.
For any roll-up to week or to all surfaces, re-sum the numerator and denominator rather than averaging the daily rates.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the per-instance collapse CTE and confirm COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id).
Add the three predicates one at a time, recording how many instances each removes.
Aggregate by day, surface and app_version with FILTER on the clean-completion flag.
Compute the NULL-instance coverage count as a separate select and report it alongside.
Pick the worst day-surface-version cell and pull ten raw instances to confirm the disqualification reason.

Expected result: One row per (day, surface, app_version) with started, completed_clean and a rate bounded by 0 and 1, plus a scalar coverage count of events carrying a NULL flow_instance_id. Instances completing after 30 minutes appear in the denominator only.

Verify it yourself

No rate exceeds 1.
COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id) in the collapsed CTE.
Total started across cells equals the count of distinct flow_instance_id values carrying a flow_started event in the window.
Instances with an error strictly between start and completion are excluded from the numerator but present in the denominator.

Follow-up

occurred_at_utc is client-supplied. What do you do with an instance whose completion timestamp precedes its start?
flow_instance_id is missing on 4 percent of starts for one app_version. What can and cannot you conclude about that build?
An instance starts at 23:55 and completes at 00:04. Which day owns it, and what does the alternative do to the daily series?

If a primary metric drops unexpectedly during an experiment, how do you conduct a metric drop diagnosis?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
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.

Follow-up

Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

How do you prioritize your work when you have multiple competing data requests from different departments?

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

Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

How do you design a product metric to measure the success of a new process optimization tool?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?

Explain how you would control for external variables when running an A/B test in a live production environment.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
What would you do if you could not randomise at all?

What are the common experimentation pitfalls you look for when designing a test?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.

Follow-up

How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

Reminder volume where the guardrail opposes the primary metric

Medium · engagement · guardrails · trade-offs

The growth team proposes tripling weekly reminder email volume. The north star is weekly active accounts completing a core action, counted on account_id from fct_event (is_core_action, account_id, occurred_at_utc, surface). Its stated guardrail is week-over-week repeat rate together with notification opt-out and unsubscribe rates. Reminders will move the primary up and the guardrail down, by design, and both effects are real. Define the decision rule before the test runs: what magnitudes make this a ship and what makes it a stop. Deliverable: the rule, including the exchange rate you are using between the two quantities.

Approach

Name the conflict precisely rather than calling it a balance: the reminder buys one week of an account returning and spends permission to contact that account, and permission is not renewable, so the two quantities are not comparable as percentage points.
Put both sides into one unit before arguing about thresholds. Value the primary gain as incremental core-action weeks over the horizon; value an opt-out as the forgone email-driven active weeks over that account's remaining expected lifetime.
Read opt-out as a stock, not a flow: accumulate it over the test, because a weekly opt-out rate that looks small is a cumulative curve that only ever rises within a fixed set of contactable accounts.
Run long enough for the novelty to decay and use the late number in the trade: compare week-1 lift with week-4 lift, state the decay you observed, and refuse to price the decision on a week-1 read.
Write the outcome as two numbers and a default action, including what happens when the result lands between them — hold and test a smaller volume increment rather than shipping on ambiguity.

Worked solution (30 min)

Measure the starting stock: current opt-out and unsubscribe rate per 1,000 contactable accounts, and the share of weekly active accounts whose session began from referrer_channel = 'email'.
Estimate the two effects separately over four weeks: incremental weekly active accounts per 1,000 extra sends, and incremental cumulative opt-outs per 1,000 extra sends.
Convert opt-outs into forgone active weeks: email-driven active weeks per account per year multiplied by remaining expected account lifetime, and set that against the incremental active weeks bought.
Compare week-1 with week-4 lift, state the decay rate, and carry the week-4 figure into the trade.
Write the rule as two thresholds plus a default action for the middle case.

Expected result: A written ship/stop rule containing a numeric exchange rate between one incremental weekly active account and one opt-out, derived from an observed lifetime and an observed decay rather than asserted.

Verify it yourself

The cumulative opt-out curve within a fixed set of contactable accounts must be non-decreasing. A dip means the denominator is being recomputed each week and the metric is not a stock.
Week-4 incremental lift should be materially below week-1. If it is not, either the horizon is too short to see decay or the arms are contaminated by cross-sends.
Repeat rate must be computed on the same accounts across consecutive weeks, not on the weekly active set, whose composition changes every week by construction.

Follow-up

Opt-out is flat but week-over-week repeat rate falls. What is the most likely mechanism, and does it change the decision?
You do not have a year of data to estimate remaining account lifetime. What do you substitute, and how do you keep the answer honest about that?
Does randomising on account rather than on user change either the readout or the size of the test?

Size every candidate cause of a trial-to-paid decline

Hard · cohort-maturity · experiment-readout · mix-shift · contribution-sizing

Trial-to-paid conversion on weekly trial-start cohorts from fct_subscription_period reads 3.1 points below the trailing eight-week mean for the three most recent cohorts. Three things happened in that window: a pricing experiment reached 50% of new trials, a payment processor migration added settlement delay, and paid_search spend tripled. Using fct_subscription_period, fct_experiment_exposure and dim_user, rank the causes by their contribution in points of the headline, state the remainder, and give the decision you would take on Monday.

Approach

Kill the immature cohorts first, because everything downstream is computed on them. The metric is lagged by the trial length plus a 14-day conversion window plus a settlement allowance, and a processor migration lengthens exactly that last term; recompute each cohort at a fixed cohort age rather than as of today, and confirm the newest cohort's value is still climbing day over day.
Hold the experiment analysis to the exposed population. Join fct_experiment_exposure on unit_id with is_in_analysis_population = TRUE rather than reading an assignment log, then check the variant split for a sample-ratio mismatch before believing any effect at all. Contribution to the headline is the variant effect multiplied by the exposed share, which is not the same number as the variant effect.
Decompose the cohort mix by dim_user.first_touch_channel using the same weight-times-rate arithmetic as any other mix question, so the paid_search increase is sized as a weight change at a measured conversion rate rather than asserted from the spend figure.
Convert all three to points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual against the historical week-to-week standard deviation of the metric. If the residual is inside that band, say so and stop looking; if it is outside, name what you would investigate next rather than leaving it implied.
Land the decision. Only one of the three is actionable on Monday, so state whether the experiment has accrued enough exposed units to stop at the pre-declared horizon, and state separately what the settlement-lag correction does to the published series and its lag rule.

Follow-up

How do you choose the fixed cohort age, and what do you lose by choosing it too long?
If the pricing variant is genuinely 1.2 points worse, does that settle whether to stop it? What else is on the other side of that decision?
The trailing eight-week mean spans the processor migration. What is the right baseline instead?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.

Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.

Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.

Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.

Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.

Day 5 — Write SQL the way you will have to write it live

Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.

Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.

Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.

Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.

Bring numbers, including the ones you are unsure of

An answer without a quantity is hard to interrogate, so interviewers keep probing until they find one. Come with the baseline, the change, the window it was measured over, and how confident you were. If the effect never got measured, say so and say what you would have measured. Fabricated precision is worse than an honest gap.

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

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Defend a flat experiment readout against a post-hoc segment

Medium · experiments · segmentation · pushback

A feature you evaluated is flat on seven-day activation: +0.05pp with a 95% interval of [-0.47pp, +0.57pp], from 61,000 exposed users per arm in fct_experiment_exposure joined to dim_user and fct_event. Baseline activation is 32%. The launch team asks you to drop every surface except mobile_web, where the point estimate is +1.1pp, and re-run. You have ten minutes in their planning meeting. Deliver a spoken position: what you will and will not do, and the decision you recommend.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you hold a statistical position under social pressure without becoming either rigid or apologetic. A generic answer says the segment is not significant; a strong one separates the request into a question that is answerable (is the mobile_web number real?) and one that is not (can we ship on it?), and answers both.
Price the multiplicity out loud. The slice was chosen after seeing the results, so its estimate is selected on favourable noise and is biased away from zero. With k independent looks at a nominal 5% level, the chance of at least one false positive is 1 - 0.95^k: 26% at six segments, 64% at twenty. Quote the k you actually inspected, not the k you reported.
Use the arithmetic already in front of you. On the point estimates, a +1.1pp mobile_web effect combined with a pooled +0.05pp implies the remaining surfaces average negative in proportion to mobile_web's share of exposures. State that as a testable implication of their story rather than as a rebuttal of it.
Ask the one question that settles the category: was mobile_web named in the analysis plan before launch? If it was, it is a planned comparison and gets a corrected reading. If it was not, it is a hypothesis, and the honest move is to size the test that would confirm it.
Convert the refusal into a cost. Size a mobile_web-only confirmatory test at the claimed effect, state the weeks of mobile_web traffic it needs, and close with the recommendation: do not ship this as a lift, and note that the interval already rules out anything at or above +0.6pp, which is itself a useful input to the roadmap.

Follow-up

The confirmatory test you sized needs nine weeks of mobile_web traffic and the team has three. What do you recommend instead?
Suppose mobile_web was pre-registered. How does your reading change, and what correction do you apply?
Your interval excludes +0.6pp. Is that the same as saying the feature does nothing?

Handle a request for numbers supporting a decision already made

Hard · integrity · framing · stakeholder

A senior leader has already decided to sunset a plan tier and asks you for the analysis showing it is the right call. Accounts on that tier carry 6% of MRR at constant FX and have the highest licensed-seat utilisation in the book. The leader's support matters to your next review cycle, and the decision is being presented in four days. Deliver what you produce, what you decline to produce, and the exact sentence you will say in the meeting where the number appears on a slide.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can find the legitimate request inside an illegitimate framing instead of either complying or refusing on principle. The generic answer promises to push back; the strong one produces something genuinely useful and states its limits in the room, without ambushing anybody.
Separate the decision from the justification. Sunsetting the tier may be correct for reasons the data does not hold, such as support cost, roadmap surface area or sales motion. What you decline is a one-sided document. What you produce is the case read both ways, which also happens to be more useful to the leader.
Build the symmetric analysis: MRR at risk at constant FX, the share of affected accounts with a plausible migration path given seats_licensed and billing_term, the recovery rate assumed for that migration and where it came from, and the downside case in which high-utilisation accounts treat the sunset as a reason to re-evaluate the vendor entirely.
Surface the inconvenient fact privately and early. The highest seat utilisation in the book is a retention signal, and the leader should hold it before the room does, so they can incorporate it rather than be caught by it.
Agree the meeting sentence in advance with the leader, so that nobody is surprised. Something to the effect that the tier is 6% of MRR and its accounts are the most heavily used in the book, and that the case for sunsetting rests on cost and focus rather than on revenue. That is true, it supports the decision on its real grounds, and it stops the deck claiming the numbers endorse it.
Decide your own line before you need it: what you will not put your name to, and that the route if asked anyway is your own manager rather than a confrontation in the meeting.

Follow-up

The deck circulates with your analysis included and the downside case removed. What do you do, and by when?
What changes if the honest analysis says the sunset is clearly the wrong call?
How do you write the same memo when the leader is your skip-level and the meeting is tomorrow?