Interview guides · GXO Logistics

GXO Logistics Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

GXO Logistics software engineer prep on partial failure: a timed-out request has an unknown outcome, not a failed one.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at GXO Logistics, you sit at the intersection of cutting-edge supply chain technology and massive global scale. GXO Logistics is the world’s largest pure-play contract logistics provider, and your work directly impacts the efficiency, visibility, and reliability of the supply chain for some of the world’s most recognizable brands. You are not just writing code; you are building the digital backbone that powers automated distribution centers, optimizes complex logistics operations, and ensures seamless inventory management.

Most rounds test how you handle an under-specified problem more than what you recall. A wrong first approach you correct out loud is recoverable; a constraint you assumed silently and were never given is the expensive mistake.

Focus areas

Fold late, out-of-order scan events by event time
Model units, lots and state machines precisely
Keep a site operating during a network partition

Overview

The role is both challenging and strategically vital. You will be expected to translate operational complexities—such as high-volume package routing, inventory tracking, and facility automation—into scalable, robust software solutions. Whether you are working on internal tools or customer-facing platforms, your contributions directly influence how goods move across the globe. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams, including operations managers and industrial engineers, to solve real-world problems that require both technical precision and a deep understanding of the logistics domain.

The GXO Logistics interview process

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

Recruiter Screen

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 Interviews

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

In-Person Visit

You cannot drill a format you do not know, so put the preparation into material that travels. Three pieces of your own work, each rehearsed until you can take a follow-up you did not anticipate, will carry a conversation or a code walkthrough equally well. Specificity is what separates that from filler. A number needs its definition before it means anything: a p99 is over some window and measured at some hop, and a server-side figure excludes the queueing and network time a client would see. The number you cannot qualify is the one to leave out.

What to demonstrate

Whether your examples carry detail only someone who did the work would hold, such as what the binding constraint actually was, which alternative you rejected and why it was worse, and what you measured on each side of the change
Whether a number survives one follow-up, meaning you can say what it was measured over and whether it moved because of your change or merely alongside it
Whether a failure is described with the specific change that followed it, rather than a lesson stated in general terms
Whether your part in a team effort is stated accurately, including what other people did

How to prepare

Write a page on each of three projects covering the constraint, the option you rejected, the measurement before and after, and what went wrong. Cut any line you cannot take a follow-up on, since you are writing the parts you will be pressed on rather than a summary.
Recover the real figures while you still have access: request volume, data size, latency with its percentile and window, team size, timeline. Note where each came from, whether a dashboard, a design document or memory, and mark the estimates so you can say which they are out loud.
Take your weakest project story to someone who works in a different area and have them ask why four times in succession. The point where you run out of answer is the part to go and re-read before the round.

Where candidates lose points

Floating-point quantities and implicit unit-of-measure conversions

Binary floating point cannot represent most decimal fractions exactly, so a chain of pallet-to-case-to-each conversions accumulates a residue that a later rounding turns into a unit that was created or destroyed, breaking conservation with no concurrency involved at all. The bug is slow and non-local: it surfaces as a cycle-count variance weeks later, at a node nobody changed, and it is untraceable because the arithmetic looked correct at every individual step. The fix is to hold quantities as integers in the smallest transacting unit, carry the UoM explicitly on every row that carries a number, store conversion factors as integers that are versioned in time, and reject a conversion that does not divide exactly instead of rounding it. The same discipline applies to money on the freight side, where an accessorial in floating-point dollars produces invoice reconciliation differences of a cent that cost more to investigate than the freight.

Holding a database transaction open across a physical or third-party operation

It is natural to open a transaction, lock the position, call the rating or tendering API, and commit on the response, and it works perfectly until the partner's p99 goes from 200 milliseconds to thirty seconds. At that point every request holding a lock on a hot item-node pair queues behind it, the connection pool fills with transactions that are waiting on the network rather than on the database, and an unrelated service sharing the pool fails at the same moment. In this domain the effect is amplified because demand concentrates on a few hot rows during a promotion or a seasonal peak, exactly when partner latency is also degraded. The structural fix is to keep transactions short and local - commit the state change together with an outbox row, let a relay perform the external call, and reconcile asynchronously - accepting at-least-once delivery and making the effect idempotent rather than trying to stretch a transaction over something the database cannot roll back.

Not asking what the system looks like if it dies halfway through

For any multi-step write, say what state remains if the process stops between step two and step three, and what brings it back: a single transaction, a saga with compensating actions, an outbox, or a reconciliation job. Partial failure is routine at any real call volume, so 'that shouldn't happen' is an answer with nothing behind it.

Treating a network call as though it were a local function call

A remote call can be slow, fail, or return after you stopped waiting, so name the timeout, the retry policy, and what the caller sees while the dependency is down. A call with no timeout turns one slow dependency into an exhausted thread or connection pool in every service upstream of it.

Questions & practice

Fold late out-of-order status events into a monotonic leg state

Hard · semilattice fold · event time · idempotency

Leg statuses form the chain planned < tendered < accepted < picked_up < in_transit < delivered, with exception and cancelled outside it. You ingest 300 million observation_event rows a day carrying subject_id (leg), observed_status, occurred_at, received_at, clock_offset_ms and dedupe_key; five percent arrive over an hour late and a tail arrives a day late. Write the merge that produces each leg's current status, prove the result depends only on the set of events and not their order, and state the per-event cost.

Approach

Define the per-leg state as a tuple ordered totally: (status_rank, occurred_at, source_priority, event_id), and define merge(a, b) as the maximum under that order. Rank leads; occurred_at and the rest only break ties. The proof is then one line: maximum over a total order is idempotent, commutative and associative, so the state space with merge is a join-semilattice and the fold over any permutation of the event set yields the same value. That is also why no global sort is needed — the O(n log n) disappears and the fold is O(1) per event, O(distinct legs) state.
Rank before time, deliberately. occurred_at is device-reported and sometimes wrong; if it led the comparison, the leg's status would be handed to whichever device has the most badly skewed clock. Ranking first means a bad clock can only reorder events within one rank. Correct occurred_at by clock_offset_ms where it was measured, and where the offset exceeds a threshold keep the observation but bar it from winning a tie — the event is still evidence, it just stops being authority.
Make the lattice total, because exception and cancelled are not points on the chain and max over a partial order is undefined for incomparable pairs. Model cancelled as an absorbing top element, and carry exception as a boolean flag merged by OR alongside the rank rather than as a rank of its own — otherwise an exception at rank 4 either blocks delivered at rank 6 or is erased by it, and both are wrong. A product of semilattices is a semilattice, so the order-insensitivity argument still holds over the tuple.
Deduplicate on dedupe_key even though the merge is idempotent. Idempotence covers a byte-identical redelivery; a partner replaying a window with a fresh event_id is not identical, and the tie-break would let the replay displace the original for no reason. Dedupe on the stable key, then fold — both halves are needed, and conflating them is the usual defect.
Partition the stream by subject_id so all events for one leg land on one partition: broker ordering guarantees are per-partition only, and while a commutative merge makes interleaving harmless, a concurrent read-modify-write on the same leg row is still a lost update. Where that cannot be guaranteed, make the write a compare-and-set on a version column, or a conditional update that only raises the state. Because the state is mergeable, shard maps combine cleanly and replaying the whole day converges to the same answer — which is what makes reprocessing safe.
Say where genuine regressions live: a delivered shipment that is refused and returns is a new leg, not a rank decrease. Monotonicity is only sound if real reversals are modelled as new objects, and keeping every superseded observation is what lets you answer the dispute later, so the fold discards nothing — it marks losers superseded.

Worked solution (40 min)

Write the rank table and the tuple comparison explicitly, including where cancelled and the exception flag sit, before any pipeline code.
Implement merge(a, b) as a pure function and test the three algebraic laws directly: merge(a, a) == a, merge(a, b) == merge(b, a), and merge(merge(a, b), c) == merge(a, merge(b, c)).
Build a 200-event batch across five legs including an out-of-order picked_up after delivered, a duplicated dedupe_key, one cancelled, one exception, and one event with a three-hour clock offset.
Fold the batch, then fold 50 random permutations of it and assert every run produces identical per-leg state.
Re-feed the entire batch a second time and assert the state is unchanged, which is idempotence end to end rather than only in the merge function.

Expected result: All 50 permutations yield identical state; the late picked_up never lowers a delivered leg; the duplicate changes nothing; the cancelled leg stays cancelled regardless of what arrives afterwards; the exception flag survives a subsequent rank increase instead of blocking or being erased by it.

Verify it yourself

The three algebraic laws hold as property tests over randomly generated state pairs, not just the hand-written fixture.
Replaying the whole day from the raw event store reproduces the current state exactly.
Every event that lost a merge is still retrievable and marked superseded — a fold that cannot show its losers cannot settle a dispute.

Follow-up

An event arrives a week late for a leg already closed and invoiced. Does it change the status, the on-time metric, both, or neither?
Two events for one leg have the same rank and the same occurred_at from different sources. What decides, and is that decision stable across a replay?
How would you test order-insensitivity rather than assert it?

Re-sum a movement ledger and report positions that disagree

Easy · aggregation · reconciliation · append-only ledger

inventory_movement holds 3 billion immutable rows: item_id, node_id, lot_id (NULL when the item is lot-untracked), state, delta_qty (signed int64 in the item's smallest transacting unit), uom_code, and reversed_by. inventory_position holds one row per (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) with qty, version and last_movement_id, using lot_id = 0 as the sentinel for untracked. Up to 80 million distinct keys. Report every key whose summed movements disagree with the stored qty, while writes continue. State your time and space bounds and how you bound the comparison.

Approach

Fix the key first. inventory_movement.lot_id is NULL for untracked items and inventory_position.lot_id is 0, so the group key is (item_id, node_id, COALESCE(lot_id, 0), state). Getting this wrong does not error — it silently produces two groups that each look like a variance, and the report becomes noise nobody reads.
Cut the ledger at a watermark, but do not take W = max(movement_id) at the start of the scan. A sequence hands out an id before the inserting transaction commits, so at the instant you read that maximum there are ids below it still in flight and invisible to your snapshot. Summing movement_id <= W misses them on this run, and advancing reconciled_through_movement_id to W makes the miss permanent: every later incremental run starts above those ids and they are never summed again. That is a hole in the ledger's own re-derivation, not a transient skew.
Take a watermark that is provably settled instead. Bound write transactions with a statement or transaction timeout so 'the longest write' is a number T, record (observed_at, max_movement_id) samples periodically, and use as W_safe the largest sampled id whose observed_at is older than T — every id at or below it has committed or rolled back. Sum rows with movement_id <= W_safe, compare only against position rows with last_movement_id <= W_safe, treat anything newer as a write that raced you rather than a variance, and advance reconciled_through_movement_id only to W_safe so the next run starts there instead of re-reading 3 billion rows. If the ledger carries a commit timestamp, cutting on that is the same guarantee without the sampling table.
Sum delta_qty as int64, and include reversal rows. reversed_by is a back-pointer for audit, not an exclusion filter: an original of +10 and its reversal of -10 must both be summed to reach 0. Excluding the original while keeping the reversal produces -10 and a false variance on every corrected key.
Guard the denomination rather than trusting it. uom_code is stored per row because pack factors change over time, so reject — do not sum — any row whose uom_code is not the item's smallest transacting unit, and report those keys separately. A mixed-denomination sum is arithmetically meaningless and looks exactly like a real variance.
Hash aggregation is O(n) time and O(distinct keys) space: 80 million entries at roughly 40-56 bytes each in a typical runtime is 3-5 GB, so quote the number. The bounded-memory alternative is an external sort-merge on the group key — O(n log n) comparisons, resident memory bounded by the merge fan-in rather than by key count, and it streams — or hash-partition by hash(item_id) % P and run P independent passes for 1/P of the peak.

Follow-up

A key shows a variance of exactly one pick, repeatedly, at one node. What do you look at first, and what would distinguish a duplicate movement from a missed one?
The job takes six hours and the variance report is stale by the time anyone reads it. How would you make it incremental without losing the guarantee that it re-derives from the ledger?
Who writes the correcting movement, and what reason code does it carry?

Trace a suspect lot forward to every shipped order line

Medium · graph traversal · genealogy · indexing

lot_edge(parent_lot_id, child_lot_id) has 400 million rows with btree indexes on both (parent_lot_id, child_lot_id) and (child_lot_id, parent_lot_id). lot_shipment(lot_id, order_line_id) maps lots to shipped lines. Given one suspect received lot, return every downstream order_line_id. The reachable subgraph can reach 2 million lots and 12 levels; the full edge table does not fit in memory. Give the traversal, its complexity in terms of the reachable subgraph, and what you do if the data contains a cycle.

Approach

Genealogy is a directed acyclic graph, not a tree: a production run consumes several lots and one lot splits across many shipments, so a node is reached by several paths and a tree traversal revisits it combinatorially. Breadth-first from the suspect lot over the (parent_lot_id, ...) index, with a hash set of visited lot ids, is O(V' + E') where V' and E' count only the reachable subgraph — 2 million 8-byte ids is 16 MB of payload and a few tens of MB with open-addressing overhead, which is why the visited set is affordable and the edge table's 400 million rows never enter memory.
Batch each level into one indexed read. Issue WHERE parent_lot_id = ANY($1) with a few thousand parents per call instead of a query per node: at 12 levels and 2 million nodes, per-node round trips dominate the wall clock entirely, and the recall's deadline is a real-world response time, not a query-plan aesthetic. The batch size is the tuning knob between round-trip count and per-statement planning cost.
Keep the visited set even though the schema says DAG. Rework and repack loops — material returned into an earlier lot — do occur, and an unguarded traversal on a cyclic edge set does not terminate; a set membership test is O(1) and turns a hang into a correct answer plus a data-quality alert. Also cap the traversal by level and by node count, and fail loudly on the cap rather than returning a partial set silently.
Join to lot_shipment once at the end over every visited lot id, not over the leaves and not per node. A lot is routinely both shipped and consumed: half a lot goes out on an order line while the other half is repacked into a child lot, so it has a lot_shipment row and outgoing edges at the same time and is not a leaf. Restricting the join to nodes with no outgoing edges drops exactly those order lines, which is under-recall — the one failure mode this trace is not allowed to have. One bulk join against an index on lot_id over the whole visited set is a single pass; per-node lookups multiply the round-trip problem by the number of visited lots.
State the semantics honestly: reachability answers which shipped lines could contain material from the suspect lot, and without propagating edge quantities it is a superset of physical containment. For a recall that is the correct direction of error — over-recall, never under-recall — and saying so is the point, because a trace that returns quickly and incompletely will be believed. The upstream question, which received lots are in a suspect shipped unit, is the same traversal over the reverse index, which is why both indexes exist.

Follow-up

A recursive CTE would express this in ten lines. What is its cost here if the index on the traversal column is missing, and how would you notice?
You need the quantity of suspect material in each downstream line, not just reachability. What has to be on the edge, and what does that do to the traversal?
The traversal must run while a production run is writing new edges. What does a consistent answer mean here, and what do you cut it at?

Two scan-event queries that stopped using their indexes

Medium · indexing · partition pruning · brin correlation

observation_event is range-partitioned monthly on occurred_at, with a btree on (subject_type, subject_id, occurred_at), a BRIN on occurred_at and a GiST on geo. Rows are inserted in received_at order and events are routinely hours late. Two queries regressed: (A) WHERE occurred_at::date = current_date AND observed_status = 'delivered'; (B) a backfill scanning WHERE received_at >= now() - interval '1 day'. For each, say why no index is used and no partition is pruned, and give the fix.

Approach

Query A wraps the column in a cast, so the predicate is over occurred_at::date and not over occurred_at. A btree or BRIN on the bare column cannot be probed, and the planner has no range to prune partitions with, so it plans every monthly partition. Fix it by rewriting to a half-open range: occurred_at >= :start AND occurred_at < :start + interval '1 day', with :start computed by the caller from the relevant IANA zone.
Do not reach for an expression index as the first fix here. The timestamptz-to-date cast is STABLE rather than IMMUTABLE because it depends on the session TimeZone, so PostgreSQL refuses to index it; indexing ((occurred_at AT TIME ZONE 'UTC')::date) is accepted but silently pins the day boundary to UTC, which is the wrong day for any stop outside it.
Query B filters a column that is neither indexed nor the partition key, so it is a full scan of every partition by construction. The subtler half is why the BRIN cannot rescue it: BRIN stores a min and max per block range and only pays when physical order correlates with the column. Rows arrive in received_at order while the indexed column is occurred_at, and late events interleave hours-old timestamps with current ones, so each range's min and max span days and almost every range qualifies.
Measure the correlation rather than assuming it: SELECT attname, correlation FROM pg_stats WHERE tablename = 'observation_event'. Near 1 means BRIN earns its keep, near 0 means it is a full scan with extra steps. Expect received_at near 1 and occurred_at well below it on this insert pattern.
Fix B with a btree on received_at, which stays compact because it is correlated with insert order, or better, drive the backfill from a monotonic cursor it already has such as event_id, which needs no new index on a table taking tens of thousands of inserts per second.
Confirm with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) and read the plan, not the clock: check how many partitions appear, whether rows removed by filter dwarfs rows returned, and whether shared buffers read matches the size of one partition or of the table.

Follow-up

Where would you put the partition boundary given events arrive up to a week late, and what happens to a row whose occurred_at falls in a partition that has already been detached?
The delivered-today query is asked per node in local time. Does that change your partitioning, your index, or only the caller?
Adding a btree to this table costs write amplification. How would you decide whether the backfill is worth it?

Model the movement ledger so a retried write is a no-op

Easy · append-only ledger · idempotency · audit history

inventory_movement is append-only: movement_id, item_id, node_id, lot_id, state, delta_qty (signed BIGINT), uom_code, reason_code, ref_type, ref_id, idempotency_key, occurred_at, recorded_at, reversed_by. inventory_position is keyed (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) with qty, version, last_movement_id. Give the DDL constraints and the exact statements a pick confirmation runs so that a client which times out after the commit and retries changes nothing. Then say how you correct a pick recorded against the wrong lot two days ago, and why the position carries CHECK (qty >= 0) rather than clamping at zero.

Approach

Put the guarantee in the schema, not the handler: UNIQUE (idempotency_key) on inventory_movement. A SELECT-then-INSERT cannot work, because two concurrent retries both read nothing before either commits and both then insert.
Claim with INSERT ... ON CONFLICT (idempotency_key) DO NOTHING RETURNING movement_id, and branch on rowcount. Zero rows means the first attempt already committed, so the handler returns success without touching the position. This branch is the whole point: applying the position update on the conflict path is what makes the ledger and the shelf disagree by one pick forever.
Keep the insert and the position update in one transaction: UPDATE inventory_position SET qty = qty + :delta, version = version + 1, last_movement_id = :id WHERE item_id = :i AND node_id = :n AND lot_id = :l AND state = :s AND version = :v, then test the rowcount and retry the transaction on zero.
Use lot_id BIGINT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 rather than NULL. In a default unique index NULLs are distinct from each other, so a NULL lot would let two position rows exist for the same untracked item and split the running sum in half.
Correct the mis-keyed pick with two compensating movements, never an UPDATE or a deleted_at flag: one reversal restoring the wrong lot, one fresh pick against the right lot, both with reason_code = 'reversal' or 'pick' and ref pointing at the original movement_id. The original row keeps its values; reversed_by is a back-pointer written in the same transaction so a reader does not need a reverse scan to see that the row was undone.
CHECK (qty >= 0) aborts the transaction and surfaces a real defect. GREATEST(qty + :delta, 0) writes a plausible number instead, so the missing receipt that caused the negative is never investigated and the first symptom is a picker at an empty location.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the two CREATE TABLE statements including UNIQUE (idempotency_key), the composite primary key on the position, CHECK (qty >= 0) and lot_id NOT NULL DEFAULT 0.
Write the handler as one transaction: the ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING RETURNING insert, the rowcount branch, then the versioned conditional UPDATE with its own rowcount test.
Send the same pick twice with one idempotency key and assert one movement row and a position that moved by delta once, not twice.
Apply the lot correction as two new movements and show that summing delta_qty per lot now matches the shelf while both the wrong and the right lot retain a legible history.

Expected result: One movement row per idempotency key, a position equal to the signed sum of its movements, and a corrected pick represented as three rows (original, reversal, re-pick) with no row ever updated except reversed_by and the position aggregate.

Verify it yourself

SUM(delta_qty) per (item_id, node_id, lot_id, state) equals inventory_position.qty after the double-send and after the correction.
Drop the UNIQUE constraint and confirm the double-send test now fails; if it still passes, the retry is not actually racing.
Force a negative by replaying a pick against an empty position and confirm the transaction aborts rather than storing zero.
Query the history of the mis-keyed pick and confirm the original quantity and its reason code are still readable.

Follow-up

Two retries of the same pick arrive concurrently on different application instances. Walk through both transactions statement by statement and say which one commits a position change.
occurred_at from a handheld is five minutes ahead of recorded_at because the device clock drifted. Which of your queries break, and which column should each of them actually be using?
How long do you keep idempotency_key unique for, given the table grows by tens of millions of rows a month?

What is a Kerberoasting attack, and how is it detected?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you determine if a message is phishing, spam, or legitimate?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

According to your estimation, how many marriages occurred in Italy in 2025?

Medium

Approach

Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

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

Gateway that books carriers at most once through timeouts

Medium · idempotency · outbox · backpressure · rate limiting

The Carrier Integration Gateway buys bookings and labels from 30 partners. Peak is 300 booking calls per second, partner p99 is 3 seconds, and stalls of several minutes occur. Each partner admits roughly 10 requests per second and rejects the rest. A booking is physically irreversible: a duplicate is a second trailer and a second invoice. Design the call path and the retry path so one shipment leg is booked at most once, including what is recorded before the call and how an ambiguous timeout is resolved.

Approach

Generate booking_idempotency_key and persist it on shipment_leg with status requested before the socket is opened. The durable row is the memory, not the process, which is what makes a crash mid-call recoverable. Send the key to the partner where their contract supports one, but never depend on their deduplication: their window is short, their key is often derived from fields you may legitimately change, and older integrations have no such concept.
Add an explicit unknown status between requested and confirmed, entered on any timeout, connection reset or 5xx. Nothing on the request path may re-issue from unknown. A sweeper reads rows in unknown and asks the partner about that key - a lookup by reference, or the next manifest - and re-issues with the same key only when the partner affirmatively has no such booking.
Make invocation asynchronous from the caller. The orchestrator commits its saga step and an outbox row in one local transaction; a relay publishes; the gateway consumes. That is at-least-once publication, not exactly-once, so the gateway consumer must itself deduplicate on (leg_id, booking_idempotency_key) - the outbox moves the problem, it does not remove it.
Size the queues from the numbers. By Little's law, 300 calls per second held 3 seconds is 900 concurrent calls, so connection and worker budgets are per-partner and total 900 plus headroom. A partner receiving 100 per second of demand against a 10 per second limit accumulates 90 per second of backlog: 5,400 queued after a minute, which is a 9-minute drain at their limit. So every partner gets a bounded queue with a token bucket, and overflow sheds by class - rate quotes dropped, tenders deferred against their cut-off, and a tender that will miss its physical departure escalated to an alternate carrier instead of waiting.
Separate retryable from terminal. A partner rejection - embargoed lane, undeliverable address, expired account - is not a retry candidate; it goes to a dead-letter queue keyed by leg with the partner's raw error preserved, and the orchestrator sees a terminal failure it can re-source rather than a call that quietly never completes.

Worked solution (30 min)

Draw the leg's booking state machine - planned, requested, unknown, confirmed, failed - and label each edge with the exact event that causes it.
Write what is committed before the call and what after, identify the crash window between them, and show the sweeper resolving it without a distributed transaction.
Compute in-flight concurrency from Little's law and per-partner backlog growth at the stated limit, then set queue bounds and shed classes from those numbers.
Work the three ambiguous outcomes - client timeout, reset after the request was sent, 500 after a partner-side commit - and state the sweeper's action for each.

Expected result: A key persisted before the call, an explicit unknown state, and a sweeper that resolves ambiguity by querying the partner for that key rather than re-issuing; asynchronous invocation via an outbox with an idempotent consumer; per-partner bounded queues and token buckets sized from a 900-call in-flight figure with class-based shedding; and a dead-letter path for terminal partner rejections.

Verify it yourself

Killing the process at any point between the persist and the response leaves a state the sweeper can resolve with no human input.
No path issues a second booking without first asking the partner about the existing key.
One slow partner cannot consume the shared connection budget and stall the other 29.
The design states that the outbox buys at-least-once, not exactly-once, and names where deduplication happens.

Follow-up

A partner has no idempotency concept and no lookup by reference. What is left to you, and what do you hand to operations?
A stall lasts 40 minutes and 60,000 legs are queued. What do you cancel, what do you keep, and how do you avoid a thundering retry the moment the partner recovers?
Where is the line between the gateway retrying and the orchestrator re-sourcing, and who owns the cut-off decision?

Orchestrator memory climbs a gigabyte a day at flat throughput

Medium · memory leak · timers · heap analysis

The fulfilment orchestrator's resident memory rises about 900 MB a day and old-generation occupancy after each full collection rises monotonically; a restart resets both. Transition throughput and latency are unchanged, and saga state itself lives in the database. The process keeps an in-heap timer wheel with one timeout entry per forward step of each order line, and lines legitimately sit in one state for days. Diagnose in order, prove the hypothesis with arithmetic before changing code, and give the fix.

Approach

Distinguish a leak from a large working set first, because the remedies are opposite. Plot occupancy immediately after each full collection, not resident memory: a monotone rise across days is retention, while a rise that plateaus is a cache doing its job. Live sagas legitimately number in the millions here, so the working set is genuinely large and the question is only whether it is bounded.
Diff two heap dumps taken two hours apart by retained size per dominator rather than guessing at the suspect. The growth will show as timer entries that transitively pin whole saga objects; the reference path from the GC root through the wheel's bucket array to the entry to the saga is what names the owner, and without that path you are guessing.
Prove the hypothesis numerically before touching code. 900 MB a day divided by roughly 1.5 KB retained per entry is about 600,000 entries a day, near seven a second. Compare that to entries created per second minus entries removed per second. If the rates do not match within an order of magnitude, the dominator is something else and the timer wheel is a bystander.
Name the defect precisely: the entry is registered when a step starts and is only released when its timeout fires, so a step that completes early leaves an orphan that survives until its deadline, and a step whose line is cancelled or re-sourced leaves one that may never be cleaned at all. Age cannot be used to identify orphans, because a line sitting in one state for days is normal.
Fix by cancelling on transition, keyed by (order_line_id, step), so the entry is removed by the same code path that advances the saga. Then move the timer out of the heap entirely: persist due_at on the saga row and let a sweeper poll WHERE due_at < now() AND status IN (open states) behind an index on due_at partial to those states. That bounds memory by the poll batch instead of by open sagas, and fixes the separate bug that an in-heap wheel silently loses every pending timeout on restart or deploy.
Add a bound so the next version of this is loud. Cap the in-flight timer structure, emit a metric on entries created versus removed, and alert on the difference rather than on memory, which only moves after the damage is done.

Follow-up

The sweeper now polls millions of open sagas. What does the index look like and how do you keep the poll from scanning the whole table?
Two orchestrator instances poll the same due sagas. How do you stop both from firing the same timeout?
How would you have detected the lost-timeouts-on-restart bug, given that it produced no error and no memory symptom?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly ninety minutes on weeknights with one longer weekend block. The plan cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that one thing finished per night beats four half-started.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and take a cold baseline

Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list and keep it visible all week.
Take one twenty-five-minute coding problem and one fifteen-minute design prompt cold, and write the single sentence naming what blocked each, because those two sentences decide where the remaining evenings go.
Set the week's rule: one thing finished every night, including the night you only have forty minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with a not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Day 2 — One pattern, written three times from blank

Choose the single pattern most likely to appear in your loop and write it three times from an empty file rather than editing the previous attempt.
On the third pass, write the invariant as a comment before the loop body and the complexity before the first line of code.
Stop at ninety minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix given another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent implementations of the same pattern plus a note on what changed between them.

Day 3 — One design, only to the depth you can defend

Take one system shape and go only as far as requirements, interface and data model, refusing to draw a box you could not survive a follow-up about.
Attach one number to each non-functional requirement, deriving it rather than asserting it, and write the assumption the number rests on.
Write the one tradeoff you are choosing against and the observation that would make you reverse it.

Deliverable: One design at interface-and-schema depth with derived numbers and one written reversible tradeoff.

Day 4 — Only the fundamentals you will have to defend

Write, in under two hundred words each, the answers to the two questions that follow almost any implementation: why this structure and not the obvious alternative, and what happens to this code at a hundred times the input.
Write what an index actually costs: faster lookups on the indexed columns against a write that now maintains a second structure, plus the cases where the planner declines to use it anyway, low selectivity, or a predicate wrapping the column in a function.
Delete any answer you cannot deliver aloud in under a minute, since an answer that needs reading is not an answer you have.

Deliverable: Three written answers, each under two hundred words and each timed aloud.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

Write a ninety-second and a four-minute version of your main project and time both aloud rather than reading them.
Prepare the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
Put one number in the first sentence and be ready to say exactly where it came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Day 6 — The one full rehearsal, in the weekend block

Run a sixty-minute mock covering a coding round and a design round in one sitting with no break, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Day 7 — Taper

Write the twenty-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning: one problem you can already solve from a blank file, one design you can narrate, and nothing you have never seen.
Re-read only your own notes from this week and open no new material.
Write the logistics down: the editor or shared document you will be working in, whether execution and lookups are permitted, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the design structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

Know where your numbers came from

Bring the two or three numbers the story rests on and know how they were collected. A p99 whose timer starts inside your handler excludes the time a request spent queued, so it can sit flat while users wait longer. Give the window, the percentile and what the measurement left out, or drop the number.

How can your skills benefit our company?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
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.

Follow-up

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

Why would you be the right person for this position?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

Why this company and why this particular position?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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