Interview guides · Gordon Flesch Company

Gordon Flesch Company Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Gordon Flesch Company software engineer prep: algorithm drills where every complexity claim has to name the assumption under it.

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at Gordon Flesch Company plays a critical role in maintaining the technical backbone that supports the company’s extensive business technology solutions. As a leader in office technology, Gordon Flesch Company relies on engineers who can bridge the gap between complex software systems and the practical, day-to-day needs of their clients. You will be instrumental in ensuring that systems are not only functional but optimized for reliability and performance.

Scope in the operational half of the job when the seat carries on-call. Rollout, rollback and what you would put on a dashboard belong inside a design answer rather than after it, and an answer that never reaches them reads as someone who has built systems but not run them.

Focus areas

Choose indexes from the query's access path
Bound every outbound call with a timeout
Detect concurrent edits instead of losing writes

Overview

This role is not merely about writing code; it is about understanding the intersection of network infrastructure and client-facing service. You will contribute to a stable, high-performance environment where your technical proficiency directly impacts the efficiency of internal operations and the satisfaction of the customers relying on Gordon Flesch Company solutions. It is an environment that values precision, systematic thinking, and a customer-centric mindset.

The Gordon Flesch Company interview process

Gordon Flesch Company candidates report 2 rounds · ≈ 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

Half of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.

What to demonstrate

Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not

How to prepare

Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window

Technical Conversation

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Where candidates lose points

Running a schema change as though the lock lasts as long as the statement

In PostgreSQL an ALTER TABLE that needs an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock must first wait for every open transaction touching that table, and while it waits, later queries needing a conflicting lock queue behind it rather than overtaking it. A DDL statement that would execute in milliseconds, issued while a thirty-second analytics query is open, therefore stalls all traffic on that table for thirty seconds: the outage length is set by the longest open transaction, not by the change. The defences are specific and worth knowing by name - set lock_timeout low and retry rather than queue, add columns without a volatile default so no table rewrite occurs (from version 11 a non-volatile default is a metadata-only change), build indexes with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY while accepting that it cannot run inside a transaction block and leaves an invalid index behind if it fails, and add constraints as NOT VALID followed by a separate VALIDATE CONSTRAINT, which takes a weaker lock.

Shipping a migration and the code that depends on it as a single change

During any rolling deploy, and for as long as a rollback remains possible, old and new code execute against the same schema at the same time. A migration that drops or renames a column breaks every instance that has not restarted yet, and code that requires a column the migration has not applied breaks every instance that restarted early. The discipline is expand then contract: add the new column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, move reads across once the backfill is verified, and only then stop writing the old shape and drop it - four deploys, usually spread over days. It feels disproportionate until the first rollback, at which point it is the only reason the previous version still runs.

Retrying a write that is not safe to repeat

A timeout tells you nothing about whether the server applied the write, so a blind retry of a create or a charge can duplicate it. Either make the operation idempotent, with a caller-supplied key the server deduplicates on or a conditional update, or do not retry it; and use exponential backoff with jitter so the retries of many clients do not synchronise into a second outage.

Listing technologies instead of trade-offs

Name the property the design needs first, such as ordered range scans, multi-entity transactions, cheap appends, or a predictable p99, then pick something that provides it and say what it gives up in exchange. Almost any component is defensible once you state the requirement it satisfies and the one it sacrifices.

Questions & practice

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.
Expire idle destinations, or memory grows with every destination ever seen rather than with the live set. Hold the rings in a bounded LRU keyed on destination_id and treat a miss as no history, which is the correct default for an endpoint that has been silent for a minute.
Keep the half-open probe out of the window arithmetic. After the circuit opens, one probe per interval decides whether to close it, and folding that single success into a window that still holds a 100 percent failure history would reopen the destination on one data point.

Follow-up

The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?
How would you make the window survive a process restart, and is it worth the cost?

Diff a projection against the primary without per-row point reads

Hard · reconciliation · range hashing · throttling

The listing projection has drifted and some rows show a stale version. The primary holds 40,000,000 resource rows across 12,000 tenants while serving 1,200 writes and 14,000 reads per second. The obvious repair, reading each resource row and comparing its version against the projection, is correct and would eventually finish. Explain precisely why it is unacceptable here, then give a diff that finds the differing rows, state its complexity, and make it safe to run against a live primary. Replication lag is usually under 100 ms and is not bounded.

Approach

Quantify the naive cost rather than calling it slow: 40,000,000 point reads at even 0.5 ms each is over five hours serialised, and the only lever is concurrency, which is exactly what you cannot spend. The primary's pool is sized for the write path, and 40,000,000 random reads evict the buffer cache that sustains the 85 percent cache hit rate, so the audit degrades the system it is auditing.
Replace random access with one ordered pass per side. Both sides can be read in (tenant_id, resource_id) order, which is a sequential scan on each and a merge join in O(n) time and O(1) memory. For a dense diff that is the whole answer, and it reads the primary once instead of 40,000,000 times.
For the expected sparse case, compare range hashes instead of rows: partition the key space, compute per range an order-independent aggregate over hash(resource_id, version), compare aggregates, and descend only into ranges that differ. With d differing rows and branching factor B, at most d ranges mismatch per level, so the drill-down examines O(d log_B(n/d)) ranges and reads full rows only in mismatching leaves.
Aggregate with a sum modulo 2^64 or a multiset hash, never XOR. XOR is order-independent but self-cancelling, so two rows wrong in the same way, or a row duplicated on one side, leave the range aggregate matching and the range is declared clean.
Pin the comparison to a point in time or it reports lag as drift: consider only rows whose updated_at is older than now minus a lag margin, and re-check each candidate mismatch individually before repairing. At 1,200 writes per second a diff without this reports thousands of false positives, and an unattended repairer would then overwrite live rows with stale values.
Make the run resumable and throttled: batch by range key, persist the last completed range, and watch a signal such as replica lag or primary CPU, pausing rather than pressing on. A reconciliation that cannot be stopped and resumed gets killed halfway and restarted from zero, which is how a repair becomes an incident.

Follow-up

The diff reports 900 stale rows. How do you decide between patching those rows and rebuilding the projection from resource_revision?
Same job, but the projection lives in a search index that cannot be scanned in key order. What changes?
How would you run this continuously at low cost instead of only as incident response?

Collapse a redelivered event batch into per-aggregate high-water marks

Easy · hashing · at-least-once · aggregation

You drain a batch of up to 5,000,000 events, each (aggregate_id BIGINT, aggregate_version INT, event_type, payload). The log guarantees order within one aggregate only; the batch merges 64 partitions, and a relay failover has redelivered a range, so an older version for an aggregate can appear after a newer one. Given a map of last_applied_version per aggregate, produce the events worth applying, at most one per (aggregate_id, version), plus the count discarded. Target O(n) time. State the memory for 2,000,000 distinct aggregates and what you do when it does not fit.

Approach

One pass, one hash map from aggregate_id to the highest version kept, and a discard counter. An event whose version is at or below last_applied_version for its aggregate is dropped without further work, which is the whole reason the event carries its version rather than a delta. O(n) expected time, O(d) space in distinct aggregates.
Keep the maximum, never the last occurrence. The redelivered range means the final appearance of an aggregate in the batch can be an older version than one seen earlier in the same batch, so last-wins applies stale state over newer state and the projection regresses with no error anywhere.
Cost the memory instead of calling it large: an 8-byte key plus a 4-byte version is 12 bytes of payload, and an open-addressed table held at a 0.7 load factor costs roughly 17 bytes per entry before per-slot metadata, so 2,000,000 aggregates is tens of megabytes in a native layout and several times that in a runtime that boxes both key and value.
If the distinct set exceeds memory, partition on hash(aggregate_id) mod P and reduce each partition independently. Every event for one aggregate hashes to the same partition, so the per-partition result is exact and the merge is concatenation rather than a second reduction.
Reject sorting the batch by (aggregate_id, version) as the default. It is O(n log n) and buys nothing, because max is associative and commutative and needs no ordering; sorting earns its cost only when the downstream consumer must receive the events in order rather than a per-aggregate winner.
Separate the two mechanisms out loud: in-batch deduplication does not make the consumer idempotent, because the same event redelivered tomorrow arrives in a different batch entirely. The projection write itself still has to be keyed on (aggregate_id, version).

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the pass: look up last_applied_version, skip if the event's version is not greater, otherwise upsert into the keep-map only when the incoming version exceeds the version already held, incrementing the discard counter on every skip.
Hand-trace one aggregate whose events arrive as v5, v3, v4, v5 with last_applied_version = 2, and confirm the output holds v5 once while the counter reads 3.
Compute the table footprint for 2,000,000 entries at 12 bytes of payload and a 0.7 load factor, then state the multiplier for a runtime that boxes keys and values.
Add the hash-partitioning fallback and say in one sentence why the per-partition results need no cross-partition merge logic.

Expected result: A single-pass O(n) reduction keyed on aggregate_id that keeps the maximum version rather than the last occurrence, O(d) space with the byte cost stated for 2,000,000 aggregates, a hash-partitioning fallback keyed on aggregate_id, and an explicit statement that batch-local deduplication does not replace a projection write keyed on (aggregate_id, version).

Verify it yourself

Shuffling the batch order changes nothing in the output, which is the test that separates max-wins from last-wins.
Feeding the same batch twice produces an identical keep-set and only doubles the discard counter.
Every emitted event has a version strictly greater than the supplied last_applied_version for its aggregate.

Follow-up

The payload is a patch rather than a snapshot, so applying only the highest version loses the intermediate changes. What changes in your reduction?
How do you detect that version 7 arrived while version 6 was never delivered, and what should the consumer do about the gap?
Two events for one aggregate carry the same version with different payloads. Which one is wrong, and how would you find out?

Explain why the owner filter ignores the listing index

Medium · composite index · query plans · sort elimination

The only index on resource is (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). A new endpoint returns one user's resources across all statuses, newest created first: WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND owner_user_id = $2 ORDER BY created_at DESC LIMIT 20. On a tenant with 2M rows it takes 900 ms and EXPLAIN shows a sort above a large scan. Explain precisely why the existing index cannot serve it, give the index that can, and state which of these the new index still will not help: owner_user_id alone across tenants; the same query ordered by updated_at. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Separate the two jobs an index does. For filtering, a composite btree is seekable only on a left prefix, so with no predicate on status the scan can at best range over tenant_id and test owner_user_id per row; PostgreSQL 16 has no btree skip scan to jump the unconstrained column.
For ordering, the index is sorted by (status, updated_at) within a tenant and not by created_at, so the LIMIT cannot stop early: every matching row is read and then sorted. That is the 'Sort Method: top-N heapsort' line, and it is why the plan reads 2M rows to answer with 20.
Derive the replacement from the access path — equality, equality, then the ordering column: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ON resource (tenant_id, owner_user_id, created_at DESC). The scan seeks to the (tenant, owner) range and walks 20 entries in order, so the Sort node disappears along with the row-read.
Treat INCLUDE (title, status) as conditional, not free. An index-only scan still visits the heap for any row whose page is not marked all-visible, so on a table taking 1.2k writes/second the win depends on autovacuum keeping the visibility map current, and the wider index costs more on every insert.
Answer the two negatives explicitly. owner_user_id alone is not a left prefix of the new index, so it degrades to a full scan of the index at best. Ordered by updated_at, the query still seeks on the (tenant, owner) pair but must sort, because only created_at is ordered within that pair.
Measure both sides with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) and compare estimated against actual rows at the lowest node — a 2M-versus-200 misestimate there is usually what chose the plan, and adding an index will not fix a statistics problem.

Worked solution (25 min)

Load 2M resource rows across 5k owners in one tenant, run the query under EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS), and record the node reading the most rows plus the Sort Method line.
Create (tenant_id, owner_user_id, created_at DESC) concurrently and re-run, confirming the Sort node is gone and actual rows fall to about 20.
Run the two negative cases and capture the plan for each.
Re-run the original tenant listing query to confirm the new index has not displaced the index that query depends on.

Expected result: With (tenant_id, owner_user_id, created_at DESC) the plan is an Index Scan with no Sort, roughly 20 rows and a handful of buffers, sub-millisecond. owner_user_id alone still scans; ORDER BY updated_at seeks on the pair and then sorts that owner's rows.

Verify it yourself

Actual rows at the leaf node is on the order of the LIMIT, not the tenant's row count.
No Sort node appears above the index scan.
Buffers read stays constant as one owner's row count grows; if it grows with it, the ORDER BY is not being satisfied by the index.
pg_stat_user_indexes shows idx_scan climbing on the new index and not on the listing index for this endpoint.

Follow-up

90% of rows are status='active'. Would a partial index WHERE status = 'active' change your answer, and for which of the three queries?
A dashboard runs this for 40 owners in one page load. What changes about the design?
How do you roll this index out on a table taking 1.2k writes/second, and what does it cost on every insert from then on?

Find version gaps and relay lag with window functions

Medium · window functions · event tables · frame semantics

outbox_event holds event_id, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status ('pending','published','dead'), attempts, created_at, published_at. A projection is missing rows and you must decide whether the relay skipped events or the consumer dropped them. Write three queries over the last seven days: one listing every aggregate_id whose published aggregate_version sequence has a hole, one giving per-day counts with a running total, and one returning the newest published event per aggregate. For each, say where the window function is evaluated relative to WHERE and LIMIT. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Gaps: compute lead(aggregate_version) OVER (PARTITION BY aggregate_id ORDER BY aggregate_version) in a subquery, then filter next_version <> aggregate_version + 1 in the outer query. Window functions are evaluated after WHERE, GROUP BY and HAVING and before the outer ORDER BY and LIMIT, so the predicate cannot sit in the same WHERE clause and PostgreSQL 16 has no QUALIFY.
Say what the seven-day filter does to the answer: it truncates every partition, so the first row per aggregate has no predecessor inside the window and a hole spanning the boundary is invisible. Widen the window, or join to resource.version as the authority for the true maximum.
Running total: SELECT date_trunc('day', created_at) AS d, count() AS n, sum(count()) OVER (ORDER BY date_trunc('day', created_at) ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING). An aggregate inside a window call is legal because grouping runs before windowing. The grouping key is unique per row here so ROWS and RANGE agree, but write the frame anyway — over ungrouped rows with tied timestamps the default RANGE frame pulls in every peer row and the total jumps.
Newest per aggregate: DISTINCT ON (aggregate_id) ... ORDER BY aggregate_id, aggregate_version DESC is the cheap PostgreSQL-only form when an index matches that order; row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY aggregate_id ORDER BY aggregate_version DESC) = 1 is the portable form and needs a subquery for the same evaluation-order reason as the gap query.
Interpret rather than report: no gaps plus a normal p95 of published_at - created_at points at the consumer; gaps or a fat lag tail point at the relay; rows still 'pending' with attempts > 0 point at neither, because they never left the database.
Be explicit that the partial index on (created_at, event_id) WHERE status = 'pending' does not serve any of these — they read published rows. Name the index a recurring monitor would need, and say why a query run twice a year may not deserve one.

Follow-up

Relay failover redelivers events. Does a duplicate break the gap query, and how would you detect one from this table alone?
Turn the gap check into a continuous monitor rather than a query someone runs after an incident. What does it watch?
The consumer claims it never received event 4,812,006. What do you look at, in what order?

Can you explain the difference between a local and a network-based resource?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.

Follow-up

How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?

How do you approach the initial diagnosis of a software-to-hardware communication error?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.

Follow-up

How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
What would you drop to keep the system up under load?

Describe what a virtual system is.

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.

Follow-up

What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?

Design the bulk write endpoint a migration script retries blindly

Medium · batch api · partial failure · idempotency

A customer's migration script pushes 2 million resources through POST /v1/resources:batch, up to 500 items per call, and retries any call that errors or times out. Within a call some items fail validation, some collide with rows that already exist, and some succeed. Specify the request and response shape, whether a batch is atomic or per-item, how idempotency works for the call and for each item, the status code for a mixed outcome, the size and item-count limits with their error codes, and exactly what the script does after a timeout mid-batch.

Approach

Choose atomicity deliberately and price it. All-or-nothing means one transaction holding locks for the whole batch on a primary already absorbing about 1.2k writes/second, which bounds batch size by lock duration, and it turns one bad row into 499 rejections the script must resend. Per-item partial success is the right default for a migration, and the contract's job is then to make a partial outcome impossible to miss.
Require a client-supplied id on every item and echo it in every result. Deriving a per-item key from the array index breaks the first time the script resends a batch with the failures removed: the indices shift, previously-succeeded items acquire new keys, and they are created a second time.
Key the effects at two levels. The call's Idempotency-Key covers an exact resend of the same bytes; per-item keys of (tenant_id, client_item_id) make a partially-applied batch safe to resend whole. Resending an identical batch must reproduce the same per-item results, not 500 conflicts the script has to interpret.
Answer a mixed outcome with one status plus per-item detail: 200, or 207 borrowed from WebDAV if you prefer it - document whichever you pick - carrying an array of client_item_id, per-item status, and either resource_id or an error code from the same taxonomy the single-item endpoint uses. Reserve 4xx for the request as a whole: unparseable body, too many items, payload over the limit (413). Put a failed count at the top level so that even a script checking only the cheapest thing cannot conclude success while rows were dropped.
Cap the request before doing any of it: item count, total bytes, and concurrent batches per tenant, since one tenant's migration otherwise consumes write capacity everyone shares. Anything that cannot finish inside the request deadline belongs on job_run behind a 202, not in a synchronous call that will time out halfway.
Script behaviour after a timeout: the outcome is unknown and no results were received, so resend the identical batch with the same keys and read the results. Never resend 'only the items I have no result for' - a timeout yields no results at all, and that rule silently means resend everything anyway.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the request schema with the per-item client id, and the response schema with per-item status and a top-level failed count.
Write the atomicity decision and the sentence of justification that names the lock cost or the resend cost.
Define both key levels and trace a resend of a half-applied batch through them, item by item.
List the whole-request rejections with their status codes and limits.
Write the script's timeout rule and the pacing it should apply between calls.

Expected result: A per-item batch with client-supplied item ids, per-item idempotency plus a call-level key, a mixed-outcome response that a status-only check cannot misread, explicit request caps, and a resend rule that is correct when no results were received.

Verify it yourself

Resending an identical batch twice leaves exactly the same set of resource rows as sending it once.
Resending a batch with the successful items removed does not create duplicates of anything.
A caller that reads only the top-level fields can still tell that some items failed.

Follow-up

At 500 items per call, what is the wall-clock time for 2 million rows, and what pacing do you publish so the migration does not become an incident?
One item in every batch fails with the same code. How does the script discover that without a human reading logs?

How do you isolate whether a problem is caused by the software, the hardware, or the network configuration?

Medium · debugging and production issues

Approach

Separate the trigger from the cause; the deploy is rarely the bug.
Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.
Say what evidence would prove you wrong, then go and look for it.

Follow-up

How would you tell a cause from a coincidence here?
What would you add now so this is faster to diagnose next time?

If a system fails to connect to the network, what are the first three checks you perform?

Medium · debugging and production issues

Approach

Check the instrumentation before believing the symptom.
Say what evidence would prove you wrong, then go and look for it.
Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.

Follow-up

What would you add now so this is faster to diagnose next time?
What would you look at first, and what would it rule out?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate senior enough that the loop turns on design and judgement rather than on whether the coding round gets finished. Five days build one system properly and then stress it; coding gets a single maintenance day, on the assumption that the risk at this level is an unexamined tradeoff rather than a missed algorithm.

Day 1 — Numbers before diagrams

Build your own reference card of the figures you will re-derive all week: bytes for a realistic record, requests per second implied by a given daily active count, and the storage that a year at a given write rate produces. Derive each one rather than copying it, because the derivation is what survives a follow-up.
Turn one product statement into capacity requirements. From ten million daily users at four writes and forty reads each, state the peak-to-average factor you are assuming and why, then produce peak write QPS, peak read QPS and a year of storage.
Write the two numbers whose order of magnitude changes the design, the read-to-write ratio and the working-set size against memory per node, and state the threshold at which each one flips your answer.

Deliverable: A one-page numbers card and one worked capacity estimate with every assumption written down.

Day 2 — One system, from requirements to schema

Spend the first ten minutes producing only functional requirements, non-functional targets with numbers attached, a p99 latency, a durability expectation, a consistency requirement, and an explicit out-of-scope list.
Define the interface before the boxes: the three or four endpoints, their parameters, what each returns, and which of them are idempotent.
Write the data model, then write the single access pattern that justifies it, and state what the schema would have to become if the dominant access pattern were the other one.

Deliverable: One design carried to endpoint-and-schema depth, with non-functional targets expressed as numbers and a written out-of-scope list.

Day 3 — The consistency you are actually buying

Write out what a client sees under asynchronous replication when its write commits on the leader and its next read is served by a lagging follower, then write the two fixes, pinning that session's reads to the leader for a bounded window or carrying a version token the replica must reach, and the cost of each.
Work the quorum arithmetic on paper for N of three with W and R of two, and separate what R + W > N does guarantee, that any read set intersects any write set, from what it does not: on its own it is not linearizability, and a sloppy quorum that accepts writes on nodes outside the preference list breaks even the intersection.
Take two storage choices with different defaults, a single-leader relational store committing synchronously and a quorum-replicated store that converges eventually, and write the specific product behaviour that would be wrong under each, rather than a general statement about which is stronger.

Deliverable: A page separating what quorum overlap guarantees from what it does not, with one concrete product misbehaviour attached to each gap.

Day 4 — Failure is the design

For one write path, work through the case where the client times out after the server has already committed, then design the idempotency key: who generates it, how long it is retained, and what the duplicate request returns.
Express the retry policy as parameters rather than as a word: maximum attempts, base delay, backoff factor, jitter, and which error classes are retried at all. Then state why retrying a non-idempotent write without a key is a correctness bug and not merely waste.
Compute the fan-out effect on tail latency. If a request waits on ten backends and each independently exceeds its p99 one percent of the time, the chance at least one is slow is 1 - 0.99^10, about ten percent. Then write why independence is the optimistic assumption and what correlates them in practice.
Name the backpressure mechanism for one queue or one dependency in the design, a bounded queue with shedding or a concurrency limit, and write what the caller is told when it engages.

Deliverable: One write path with an idempotency design, a parameterised retry policy, and a written tail-latency calculation with its assumption named.

Day 5 — Scaling the hot path

Choose cache-aside or write-through for one read path and write the staleness window each produces, then name the invalidation event and what the system does when that event is lost.
Design against the stampede: either coalesce requests so only one recomputes a missing key, or refresh early with jittered expiry, and write why identical TTLs on keys populated in the same moment produce a synchronised expiry and a thundering herd.
Shard one table by a key you choose, then answer the two questions that break the choice: which queries now require a scatter-gather, and what happens to the distribution when one tenant is a hundred times larger than the median.
Write the cost of adding a node under plain modulo placement, where nearly every key moves, against consistent hashing, where roughly one key in n+1 moves, and state what virtual nodes are for.

Deliverable: A caching and sharding decision for one path, each with its failure mode and its rebalancing cost written beside it.

Day 6 — Keep the coding hand in, at the bar that applies to you

Solve one medium problem in thirty minutes, then spend twenty more making it production-shaped: named invariants, validation at the boundary, and errors that distinguish a caller mistake from an internal fault.
Write the tests you would require of a colleague's version of that function: one for empty input, one for the boundary, and one for the case the implementation is most likely to get wrong.
Read a piece of your own code from six months ago and write the change you would ask for, phrased as you would actually phrase it in review.

Deliverable: One problem hardened to review standard, with its test list and one written review comment.

Day 7 — Defend it while being interrupted

Run a forty-five-minute design mock with an interviewer briefed to change a requirement halfway, a tenfold traffic increase or a new strict consistency requirement, and to push on one number you estimated.
Rehearse the two sentences a senior loop is listening for: naming the tradeoff you are choosing against and why, and saying what you would measure to learn that the choice was wrong.
Prepare the design you regret: a real decision, the constraint that produced it, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards.

Deliverable: Mock notes recording how the design changed under the new requirement, plus a written account of one regretted decision.

Risky changes and the reversal path

For anything that touched live traffic, be ready to say how you would have undone it: a flag, a staged rollout, dual writes with the old path still authoritative. Once the old column is dropped or the source rows are overwritten there is no reverse, so name what you kept a copy of and for how long.

Tell us about a time you had to handle a frustrated user regarding a software performance issue.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you explain a complex technical issue to a client who does not have a technical background?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

Argue against a design, lose, and commit anyway

Medium · disagreement · service boundaries · decision records

Describe a design you argued against and lost. State the failure you predicted as a named mechanism, not a feeling about complexity: two services that would need one transaction, a projection with no rebuild path, a write path with no idempotency key. Say what evidence you brought, what the decision maker weighed instead, and what you did after the decision was made: what you instrumented, what you wrote down, and whether the prediction came true. Five minutes.

Approach

State the prediction in falsifiable form up front: the mechanism, the condition that triggers it, and the observable outcome. A prediction that cannot be checked also cannot be credited to you later.
Show the evidence you had at the time and label each piece honestly as measured, analogous, or intuition. Keeping the intuition is fine; disguising it as data is the thing that erodes your standing in the next argument.
Represent the opposing case at full strength, including the constraint you did not control: a fixed date, a team boundary, or the fact that the decision was cheap to reverse and yours was not.
Make disagree-and-commit concrete. Name the artefact you left behind so the prediction could be settled without you: the alert and its threshold, the counter on the dashboard, the decision note that recorded the trade-off and the condition that would revisit it.
Report the outcome without editing it. If the design held and your predicted mechanism never fired, say so and say what you had mis-weighted, which is more persuasive than a vindication story.

Follow-up

What threshold on that alert would have proved you right, and did anyone ever look at it?
If the same proposal arrived tomorrow with the same deadline, would you argue it the same way?
How did you behave toward the design once it shipped and started failing in a different way than you predicted?