Grab Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Grab, you are at the heart of one of Southeast Asia’s most complex technology ecosystems. You will work on high-impact problems that directly influence the daily lives of millions—from optimizing ride-hailing supply and demand, to refining food delivery logistics, and enhancing the financial services offered through GrabPay.

The boundary with engineering varies enough to be worth asking about directly. Some seats end at the analysis and the writeup; others carry feature pipelines, scheduling and alerting, which decides whether production data plumbing belongs in your prep at all.

Focus areas

• Size an experiment before anyone launches it
• Pick a randomisation unit that respects interference
• Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

This role is not just about building models; it is about driving strategic business decisions through data. You will operate in a fast-paced, data-rich environment where you must balance technical rigor with business acumen. Whether you are working on pricing algorithms, personalization engines, or fraud detection systems, your work will be evaluated by its ability to scale and deliver measurable improvements to the Grab platform.

The Grab interview process

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

Online Technical Evaluation

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

Virtual or Onsite 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

Deep-Dive Discussions

Because the format is not fixed, prepare the reasoning rather than the ritual. Nearly every version of this round draws on the same underlying material: a design you can defend, a metric you can define exactly, an analysis whose assumptions you can state out loud. Only the wrapper changes, whether that is a take-home, a live case, a deep dive on past work, or a rough estimate on a whiteboard. Answers rehearsed to fit one shape stall the moment the shape differs. Practise naming the assumption behind a number, then saying how much the conclusion moves if that assumption is wrong.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your justification for a method survives the question 'why not the simpler thing', including when the simpler thing would have worked
• Precision under pressure: what exactly counts as an active user, a conversion or a success, over what window, with what exclusions
• Whether you carry an argument through to a recommendation instead of stopping at a list of tradeoffs

How to prepare

• For each project you plan to mention, write the metric definition in one sentence: numerator, denominator, time window, exclusions. Say it out loud once, because vagueness shows up in speech before it shows up on paper.
• Rehearse the same project at three lengths: two minutes, ten minutes, and a deep dive on one technical decision. Cutting live is harder than it sounds.
• For your headline result, write down what would have had to be true for it to be wrong, and how you ruled that out.

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.

Watching an experiment daily and stopping when it crosses significance

A fixed-sample test controls type I error at one pre-declared look. Checking repeatedly and stopping at the first p < 0.05 inflates the false positive rate to roughly 0.15 to 0.20 for ten looks, and it rises further with more frequent checks, because the p-value takes a random walk that will eventually dip below the threshold under the null. The usual defences are a fixed horizon declared before launch, group-sequential boundaries such as O'Brien-Fleming that spend alpha across a planned number of looks, or always-valid confidence sequences that are correct under continuous monitoring. Compounding it, the effect size reported conditional on having crossed the threshold is biased away from zero, and the bias is larger the lower the power was, so an underpowered test that 'won' typically overstates the lift it found.

Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised

Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.

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

Write code to calculate correlation and covariance matrices from a provided dataframe.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Describe a classification or regression model you have built; why did you choose that specific algorithm?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

1. Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
2. Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
3. Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

Walk me through the trade-offs between model complexity and interpretability in a real-time production system.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

1. Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
2. Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
3. Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Split a pooled conversion drop into rate and mix

Medium · mix shift · decomposition · pandas

You have weekly visit-to-signup counts by segment: a DataFrame with week, device_type, referrer_channel, visitors and signups. The pooled rate fell 0.84 percentage points between two consecutive weeks while several individual segments rose. Write a function that, for a caller-supplied list of segment columns, splits the pooled change into a rate effect, a mix effect and an interaction term that sum exactly to the observed change. Return those three scalars plus a per-segment contribution table sorted by absolute contribution, so the largest single driver can be named.

Approach

1. State the algebra before coding: the pooled rate is r = sum over segments of w_s * r_s, with w_s the segment's share of the denominator. Then r1 - r0 decomposes exactly into sum(w_s0 * (r_s1 - r_s0)) for rate, sum((w_s1 - w_s0) * r_s0) for mix, and sum((w_s1 - w_s0) * (r_s1 - r_s0)) for interaction. The identity is per-segment, so it holds for any numbers you put in the four slots.
2. Pivot both weeks onto a common segment index with an outer join so a segment that appeared or vanished is kept rather than dropped, then decide what rate to give a segment with no visitors in one of the weeks, and document the choice. The identity stays exact either way because the missing week's weight is 0, but the attribution does not. Filling the missing rate with 0 sends an appearing segment's entire w_s1 * r_s1 into the interaction term, since w_s0 = 0 makes both the rate term and the mix term (w_s1 - w_s0) * r_s0 identically zero; a vanishing segment then splits as -w_s0 * r_s0 in rate, -w_s0 * r_s0 in mix and +w_s0 * r_s0 in interaction.
3. The convention used below instead imputes the missing week's rate as that week's pooled rate. A vanishing segment then lands wholly in mix at -w_s0 * r_s0, with rate and interaction cancelling; an appearing segment puts w_s1 * r_pooled0 in mix (volume arriving at the average rate) and only w_s1 * (r_s1 - r_pooled0) in interaction (its rate differing from that average). Impute by which week the segment is missing from, never by argument order, or the swap identities below stop holding.
4. Guard the division where visitors is 0 so no NaN enters the vectors, because a single NaN poisons every sum. A segment with zero visitors in both weeks contributes exactly 0 and can be dropped; a segment missing from only one week does not contribute 0, and where its contribution lands is settled by the convention above, not by the guard.
5. Compute the three components as vectors over segments, then sum. Keep the vectors, because the per-segment contribution table is what turns the decomposition into an explanation.
6. Assert that the three components sum to the observed pooled change within floating-point tolerance. This identity is exact, so a mismatch means an implementation bug, not a modelling judgement.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Aggregate to one row per (week, segment tuple) with summed visitors and signups, then split into w0 and w1 frames and align with an outer join, filling missing visitors and signups with 0.
2. Compute w_s = visitors / visitors.sum() within each week, and r_s = signups / visitors only where visitors > 0. Where a week's visitors are 0, set that week's r_s to that week's pooled rate, the stated convention; never leave it NaN.
3. rate_effect = (w0 * (r1 - r0)).sum(); mix_effect = ((w1 - w0) * r0).sum(); interaction = ((w1 - w0) * (r1 - r0)).sum().
4. contribution = w0*(r1-r0) + (w1-w0)r0 + (w1-w0)(r1-r0) per segment, which reduces to w1r1 - w0r0; sort by abs and return the head.
5. assert abs(rate + mix + interaction - (pooled1 - pooled0)) < 1e-12.

Expected result: Three scalars summing exactly to the observed pooled change, plus a segment table whose contribution column also sums to that change. In the stated case rate and mix carry opposite signs: several segments converted better while volume moved toward a weaker-converting one, which is what makes the pooled move look inexplicable until it is split.

Verify it yourself

• On synthetic data where every segment appears in both weeks, every segment rate is held constant and only the weights move, rate_effect and interaction are exactly 0.
• On synthetic data where every segment appears in both weeks, weights are held constant and only rates move, mix_effect and interaction are exactly 0.
• The per-segment contribution column sums to the pooled change, matching the sum of the three scalars.
• Swapping the two weeks negates the total, as it must, but not the parts. Assert the three identities that actually hold: the interaction term is exactly invariant, because both of its factors change sign; the swapped rate effect equals -(rate_effect + interaction); and the swapped mix effect equals -(mix_effect + interaction). They still sum to the negated pooled change. Expecting all three to flip sign is the common wrong assertion.
• Plant a segment present only in week 1, holding 3 percent of week-1 visitors at a rate well below pooled. Under the documented pooled-rate convention its mix contribution is w_s1 * r_pooled0 and its interaction contribution is w_s1 * (r_s1 - r_pooled0), with a rate contribution of exactly 0; under a zero-fill convention its mix contribution is exactly 0 and the whole w_s1 * r_s1 lands in interaction. Assert whichever one the function documents, and fail if mix is asserted non-zero while the code zero-fills.

Follow-up

• The mix effect accounts for 0.71 of the 0.84 point drop, driven by paid_social volume. What is your recommendation, and what would change it?
• Why is a two-way split into a counterfactual rate and a residual also exact, and when would you prefer it to the three-way version?
• Segmenting on device and channel leaves a large interaction term. What does that tell you about the choice of segments?

Given a table of transaction logs, write a query to calculate the total spend per user over a rolling 30-day window.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
2. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
3. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from 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?

Explain the use of Common Table Expressions (CTEs) versus subqueries in complex data retrieval.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

• How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
• How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

1. Write the per-instance collapse CTE and confirm COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id).
2. Add the three predicates one at a time, recording how many instances each removes.
3. Aggregate by day, surface and app_version with FILTER on the clean-completion flag.
4. Compute the NULL-instance coverage count as a separate select and report it alongside.
5. 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 you noticed a sudden drop in ride completion rates, how would you perform a root cause analysis (RCA)?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
2. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
3. Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

Follow-up

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

How would you design an experiment to test the impact of a new surge pricing strategy?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
2. Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
3. 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?
• How would you handle interference between treated and control units?

Explain the intuition behind Bayesian versus Frequentist approaches in A/B testing.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Explain the difference between Type I and Type II errors and how they impact business decisions.

Medium

Approach

1. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
2. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
3. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.

Follow-up

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

Size an activation test before anyone writes code

Easy · power · minimum detectable effect · proportions

A team wants to test a new onboarding checklist against the seven-day activation rate: users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least two distinct UTC dates inside the first seven days, counted from dim_user.account_created_at_utc with is_internal = FALSE. Baseline is 22%. Weekly non-internal signups are 9,000, split evenly between two arms. State the minimum detectable effect after two weeks of enrolment, the enrolment needed to detect a 1.5 percentage point absolute lift, and the earliest date a readout would be honest.

Approach

1. Use the two-proportion sizing shortcut n = 16 p(1-p) / d^2 per arm, where d is the absolute lift. The 16 is 2(1.96 + 0.84)^2 = 15.7 rounded, i.e. two-sided alpha 0.05, 80% power, equal arms.
2. Invert it for the MDE at fixed n: d = sqrt(16 p(1-p) / n). Two weeks gives 9,000 per arm, so d = sqrt(2.746 / 9000) = 0.0175, which is 1.75 percentage points absolute or 7.9% relative on a 22% base.
3. Run it forward for d = 0.015: n = 2.746 / 0.000225 = 12,202 per arm, 24,404 total, about 2.7 weeks of enrolment. Round up to three whole weeks so the enrolment window contains no partial week, since signups are not uniform across weekdays.
4. Add the metric's own lag rather than reporting the enrolment end date. Activation is unobservable until seven days after the last enrolled signup, and the definition publishes on an eight-day lag, so the readout lands 29 days after launch.
5. Close by testing whether the ask is realistic. If the team's honest prior is a 0.5pp lift, the requirement is about 110,000 per arm and roughly 24 weeks of enrolment, and saying so before launch is the deliverable.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. Compute p(1-p) = 0.22 x 0.78 = 0.1716 and 16 x 0.1716 = 2.746.
2. MDE at two weeks: n = 4,500 per arm per week x 2 = 9,000; d = sqrt(2.746 / 9000) = 0.0175.
3. Sample for d = 0.015: n = 2.746 / 0.000225 = 12,202 per arm, which is 2.71 weeks of enrolment, so enrol three whole weeks.
4. Readout date = 21 days of enrolment + 8 days of follow-up and publication lag = 29 days from launch.
5. State the boundary of what this quarter can answer: below roughly 0.7pp the requirement passes 56,000 per arm and more than a full quarter of enrolment.

Expected result: MDE after two weeks is 1.75 percentage points absolute, 7.9% relative. Detecting 1.5pp needs 12,202 users per arm, so three weeks of enrolment and a readout 29 days after launch. Detecting 0.5pp needs about 110,000 per arm, roughly 24 weeks, which is the answer the team needs to hear before the code is written.

Verify it yourself

• MDE must fall as 1 / sqrt(n). Doubling enrolment from two weeks to four should move 1.75pp to 1.24pp, not to 0.88pp.
• Substituting d = 0.0175 back into 16 p(1-p) / d^2 must return about 9,000 per arm.
• An exact two-proportion calculator at alpha 0.05 two-sided, power 0.80, p1 = 0.22, p2 = 0.235 returns about 12,260 per arm, within half a percent of the shortcut.

Follow-up

• The team also wants trial-to-paid read from the same test. What does a second primary metric do to your alpha, and what would you actually do about it?
• Signups are heavier on weekdays. What goes wrong if enrolment runs 17 days instead of 14?
• The activation definition uses a two-distinct-days threshold. If that were loosened to one day, what happens to the baseline rate and to the sample you need?

Tell a pipeline outage from a collapse in usage

Medium · pipeline-failure · instrumentation · event-volume

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.

Day 1 — Design one test end to end on paper

• Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
• Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
• State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.

Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.

Day 2 — Power arithmetic until it is automatic

• Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
• Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
• Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.

Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.

Day 3 — Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem

• Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
• Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
• Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.

Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.

Day 4 — Validity threats you can actually test for

• Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
• Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
• Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.

Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.

Day 5 — When randomization is not available

• Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
• Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
• List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.

Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.

Day 6 — The readout query

• Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
• Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
• Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.

Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.

Day 7 — Present it to someone who will not read the appendix

• Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
• Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
• Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.

Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.

Where your data came from

Data people depend on systems owned by other teams, and much of the job is negotiating for instrumentation, access, or a fix to a broken pipeline. Prepare an example of getting something changed upstream that you did not control. Describe what you asked for, what you traded, and how you worked while you waited.

How do you handle imbalanced datasets in the context of fraud detection?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
2. Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?

Disagree with a product manager's roadmap claim using data

Medium · causal inference · selection bias · stakeholder

A product manager proposes building a feature on the argument that accounts connecting an integration in week one retain three times better at week four. The figure is correctly computed from dim_user and fct_event, and it has already been shown to leadership. You have one scheduled 1:1 before the roadmap locks. Deliver the specific analysis you would run to test whether the relationship is causal, the result that would change your own mind, and how you open the conversation so that the PM is not put in the position of defending the number in public.

Approach

1. Recognise what is being probed: whether you can separate a number being right from an inference being wrong, and do it without costing the PM face. The generic answer recites that correlation is not causation; the strong one names the specific confound and proposes the cheapest design that could distinguish the explanations.
2. State the alternative concretely. Accounts that connect an integration in week one are accounts that already have a workflow and a technical owner, so week-one intent plausibly drives both the connection and week-four retention. The selection is on intent, which no amount of post-hoc adjustment observes.
3. Order the discriminating analyses by cost. First, condition on pre-connection activity by comparing retention within strata of week-one core-action count, which removes the crude version of the confound but not unobserved intent. Second, look for variation in integration availability that was unrelated to intent, such as a staggered release or an outage window. Third, an encouragement design that randomises a prompt to connect and reads the intent-to-treat effect on week-four retention, which is the only version that identifies an effect.
4. Run the timing check, because it is nearly free and it is the most persuasive single piece of evidence. If the retention advantage among connectors is already visible before any of them connected, the causal story is largely finished.
5. Pre-commit to what would change your mind and say it before you show anything: if the gap survives stratification and the encouragement arm moves week-four retention at all, the feature has a case and you will say so.
6. Open the 1:1 by agreeing with the true part, that the correlation is real and worth chasing, then ask what effect size the roadmap plan assumes. That makes the size of the claim the topic instead of its authorship.

Follow-up

• The encouragement test needs six weeks and the roadmap locks in two. What do you recommend in the interim?
• Stratifying on week-one activity closes half the gap. What do you conclude, and what do you still not know?
• How would you word this in the roadmap document so the PM's original number is reframed rather than deleted?