HarbourVest Partners Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

A Data Scientist (Quantitative Researcher) at HarbourVest Partners occupies a critical position at the intersection of private markets, advanced statistical modeling, and financial strategy. You are not simply building models in a vacuum; you are tasked with generating actionable intelligence that informs high-stakes decision-making across Private Equity Secondaries, Co-Investments, and Evergreen Portfolio Management. Your work directly influences how the firm evaluates risk, prices complex assets, and manages capital at scale.

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

• Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
• Define numerator, denominator and window precisely
• Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

This role is inherently collaborative and intellectually rigorous. You will work alongside investment professionals to translate abstract market phenomena into quantitative frameworks, moving from data ingestion to model deployment. Whether you are optimizing portfolio construction or predicting cash flow patterns, your contributions are instrumental in maintaining the firm's competitive edge in global private markets. Success here requires a rare blend of technical precision and the ability to communicate sophisticated findings to non-technical stakeholders.

While the role is titled Data Scientist, the functional focus is heavily weighted toward quantitative research and financial engineering. Frame your experience through the lens of how your models drive investment outcomes.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

• Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
• Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

• Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
• Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

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.

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.

Comparing periods without accounting for seasonality or day-of-week

Compare whole weeks against whole weeks and check whether the same swing appeared in prior cycles or prior years before attributing it to anything you changed. Weekday and weekend populations often differ enough that a Tuesday-to-Saturday comparison is meaningless.

Naming a model class before naming the deployment constraints

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

Questions & practice

How would you model the cash flow distribution of a private equity fund?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

1. Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
2. Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
3. Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.

Follow-up

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

How would you approach the risk assessment of a secondary market portfolio?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Permutation test for a difference in conversion rates

Medium · permutation test · resampling · inference

Write a two-sided permutation test from scratch for a difference in conversion rates, using no scipy hypothesis function. Input: a DataFrame with unit_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}, one row per randomisation unit. Compute the observed difference in proportions, then build the null distribution by reshuffling the variant labels while holding each arm's size fixed. Report the p-value as (1 + the count of permuted statistics at least as extreme in absolute value) / (B + 1) with B at least 10,000, and return the permutation distribution.

Approach

1. Name the null being tested: the sharp null that each unit's outcome is the same under either label. That is what licenses permuting labels, and it is stronger than the null of equal means, which matters when someone asks whether the test is valid under unequal variances.
2. Extract converted to a single numpy array of 0s and 1s and record n_treatment. Every permutation is then just a reshuffle of one array, and the treatment mean is the mean of the first n_treatment entries of the shuffled array.
3. Vectorise the B permutations with rng.permuted on a tiled 2-D array, or with argsort of a (B, n) random matrix. A Python loop calling np.random.shuffle B times is correct but roughly an order of magnitude slower and often runs past the time limit.
4. Use the +1 correction in both numerator and denominator. Without it a p-value of exactly 0 is reportable, which is false: the observed labelling is itself one of the permutations, so the smallest attainable p-value is 1/(B+1).
5. Compare the resulting p-value against a two-proportion z-test as a sanity check. At these sample sizes they should agree closely; a large divergence means the statistic or the shuffle is wrong, not that the permutation test found something subtle.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. y = df['converted'].to_numpy(); n_t = (df['variant'] == 'treatment').sum(); obs = y[treat_mask].mean() - y[~treat_mask].mean().
2. Build the null: for B draws, shuffle y and take the mean of the first n_t entries minus the mean of the rest.
3. p = (1 + (np.abs(null) >= abs(obs) - 1e-12).sum()) / (B + 1), with the small tolerance so exact ties count as at least as extreme.
4. Return obs, p and the null array; plot or describe the null to confirm it is centred at 0.

Expected result: The observed difference, a p-value in [1/(B+1), 1], and a null distribution whose mean is approximately 0 and whose standard deviation approximately matches the analytic pooled standard error sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)).

Verify it yourself

• The null distribution's mean is within a few Monte Carlo standard errors of 0; if it is centred on the observed difference, the code bootstrapped instead of permuted.
• The null's standard deviation agrees with the analytic pooled standard error to within a couple of percent.
• The p-value agrees with a hand-computed two-proportion z-test p-value to within about 0.01 at these sample sizes.
• Setting converted identical in both arms by construction yields a p-value near 1, and a planted large effect yields the floor of 1/(B+1).

Follow-up

• The arms are 200 and 20,000 units. Does the permutation test stay valid, and what happens to its resolution at B = 10,000?
• Give a 95 percent confidence interval for the difference. Can you get it from this permutation distribution, and if not, what would you run instead?
• The randomisation unit is user_id but the outcome is per session. What breaks, and what is the fix?

Rebuild sessions from raw events with a thirty-minute gap

Medium · window-functions · sessionisation · gaps-and-islands

From fct_event (event_id, visitor_id, occurred_at_utc) alone, rebuild sessions: a new session begins when the gap from that visitor's previous event exceeds 30 minutes, and every session is force-closed at UTC midnight so none spans two calendar dates. Return one row per session with visitor_id, session_start, session_end, event_count and session_date. Do not read fct_session; the point is to reproduce it. Assume duplicate occurred_at_utc values exist for the same visitor.

Approach

1. Get the previous timestamp per visitor with LAG(occurred_at_utc) OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY occurred_at_utc, event_id). The event_id tiebreaker is required, not stylistic: with duplicate timestamps an unstable ordering makes the boundary flags non-deterministic between runs.
2. Set a boundary flag when prev IS NULL, or occurred_at_utc - prev > interval '30 minutes', or occurred_at_utc::date <> prev::date. The third disjunct is the midnight rule, expressed as a date change rather than a clock comparison so it holds across any gap length.
3. Number the islands with SUM(flag::int) OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY occurred_at_utc, event_id ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING). Because event_id is unique the ordering is total, so no two rows are peers and RANGE UNBOUNDED PRECEDING would compute exactly the same numbers here. Write ROWS anyway: it is the half of the guard that survives someone later simplifying the ORDER BY back to occurred_at_utc alone, at which point the default RANGE frame gives every row sharing a timestamp one shared running total.
4. GROUP BY visitor_id and the island number, then MIN(occurred_at_utc) AS session_start, MAX(...) AS session_end, COUNT(*) AS event_count, session_start::date AS session_date.
5. Reconcile against fct_session on one sample day. The counts should agree except for server-emitted events carrying no client session, so a systematic difference beyond those is a bug in the gap rule or in the ordering.

Follow-up

• Why 30 minutes? What does a 5-minute rule do to sessions-per-visitor and to any per-session conversion rate?
• The same person uses phone then laptop. Two visitor_ids, two sessions. What breaks if you sessionise on user_id instead?
• The midnight rule splits an overnight session. Which metrics does that bias, and in which direction?

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?

Explain the trade-offs between different valuation methodologies for illiquid assets.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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?

Estimate a threshold-triggered programme with regression discontinuity

Hard · regression discontinuity · instrumental variables · identification

Accounts reaching seats_licensed >= 25 in dim_account are automatically assigned a dedicated onboarding specialist; below 25 they are not. Leadership wants the programme's effect on 12-month net revenue retention and will not randomise coverage away from any account. Three years of dim_account and fct_subscription_period rows are available, including mrr_cents_constant_fx. Specify the design, the estimand it identifies, two threats that would invalidate it, and what changes when 8% of accounts below the threshold received a specialist anyway.

Approach

1. Set up a regression discontinuity on the running variable seats_licensed with a cutoff at 25, comparing accounts just below with accounts just above. The identifying assumption is continuity: absent the programme, expected 12-month NRR would be a continuous function of seat count through 25.
2. Name the estimand honestly and early. This is a local average treatment effect at 25 seats. It says nothing about a 5-seat or a 200-seat account, and that belongs in the first line of the answer rather than a footnote.
3. Estimate with local linear regression on each side, a triangular kernel, an MSE-optimal bandwidth and robust bias-corrected confidence intervals. Do not fit a high-order global polynomial; it imports weight from observations far from the cutoff and is known to manufacture discontinuities.
4. Test the two threats that actually apply. Manipulation: an account that wants the specialist can buy a 25th seat, which piles density just above the cutoff, so run a density test on seats_licensed around 25 and look for a spike at exactly 25. Bundling: if a price break, a plan tier or a support SLA also switches at 25 seats, the discontinuity measures the whole bundle, so check current_plan_tier and the price schedule at the cutoff.
5. Treat the 8% crossover as a fuzzy design. Treatment probability jumps at the cutoff without going from 0 to 1, so divide the jump in NRR by the jump in the probability of receiving a specialist. That is a Wald instrumental-variables estimator with the cutoff indicator as the instrument; it needs exclusion, which is exactly what the bundling check is about, plus monotonicity, and it narrows the estimand further to compliers at the cutoff.

Worked solution (45 min)

1. Fix the running variable as seats_licensed at the moment the assignment rule was evaluated, and fix the outcome as 12-month NRR computed from fct_subscription_period on mrr_cents_constant_fx for the account's cohort.
2. Plot mean NRR in one-seat bins on each side of 25 with a local linear fit. The picture comes before the estimate, because a discontinuity invisible in the binned plot is rarely real.
3. Run the density test at 25 and a continuity check on pre-cutoff characteristics such as billing_country, account_type and pre-programme MRR; these must be smooth through the cutoff.
4. Estimate the sharp RD with an MSE-optimal bandwidth and robust bias-corrected intervals, then repeat at half and double the bandwidth as a sensitivity check.
5. Estimate the first stage, the jump in specialist assignment at 25, and report the fuzzy estimate as the ratio with the estimand stated as the complier effect at the cutoff.

Expected result: A fuzzy regression discontinuity at 25 seats, estimated as the ratio of the NRR jump to the specialist-probability jump, identifying the local complier average effect at the cutoff under continuity, exclusion and monotonicity. With 8% crossover below the cutoff and near-full compliance above it, the first stage is about 0.92, so the fuzzy estimate is roughly 1.09 times the reduced-form jump and its standard error inflates by the same factor.

Verify it yourself

• Characteristics fixed before the cutoff is crossed must not jump at 25. If account_type mix or billing_country jumps, the local comparison is not as-good-as-random.
• The estimate should be stable across half and double the MSE-optimal bandwidth. Strong bandwidth sensitivity means the functional form is doing the work, not the discontinuity.
• The reduced-form jump divided by the first-stage jump must reproduce the fuzzy point estimate exactly; if it does not, the two are being computed on different samples.
• The effective sample inside the bandwidth, not the full account count, drives the standard error. Local linear RD typically needs on the order of three to four times the sample a randomised comparison would for the same power.

Follow-up

• The density test shows a spike at exactly 25 seats. Is the design dead, and what would you do next?
• You have 40,000 accounts but the bandwidth keeps 900. How does the detectable effect compare with a randomised comparison of the same nominal size?
• Seat counts change over time. Which value of seats_licensed is the running variable, and what breaks if you pick the wrong one?

Pooled signup conversion fell while every segment rose

Medium · mix-shift · simpsons-paradox · decomposition

Weekly visit-to-signup conversion, counted on distinct fct_session.visitor_id with is_bot_flagged = TRUE and consent_state = 'denied' sessions excluded, fell from 4.4% to 3.9% week over week. Split by device_type and referrer_channel, all twelve cells are flat or up. A paid_social campaign launched on Monday. Using fct_session and fct_event, quantify how much of the 0.5-point fall is mix and how much is within-segment rate, then state what you would tell the growth lead.

Approach

1. Write the pooled rate explicitly as the sum over segments of weight times segment rate, and materialise both weeks' weights and rates into one table. Until that table exists there is nothing to decompose, only opinions.
2. Compute three quantities and report all three: the rate effect holding the prior week's weights fixed, the mix effect holding the prior week's rates fixed, and the interaction residual. Reporting only the first two hides a term that can be material when both weights and rates move a lot.
3. Rank segments by their individual mix contribution, computed as the change in that segment's weight multiplied by its prior-period rate. This is what lets you say one cell caused the move rather than gesturing at the campaign.
4. Verify the new traffic is human and countable before accepting the mix story: check is_bot_flagged coverage on the new channel, the distribution of duration_seconds and event_count for its sessions, and whether its consent_state profile differs from the rest.
5. Deliver the conclusion as a definition change rather than a diagnosis: a pooled rate over a mix that moves is not comparable week over week, so the recurring report should carry per-channel rates plus absolute signups, with the pooled figure demoted or dropped.

Follow-up

• Paid social converts at roughly a quarter of organic but absolute signups rose. Is the campaign working, and what would you need to answer that properly?
• Would you reach the same conclusion if the campaign had moved the mix by two points instead of sixteen? Where is your threshold and why?
• How would you present this to someone who has been watching the pooled number in a weekly meeting for a year?

Suggested practice checklist

Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

• Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
• Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
• Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

• Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
• Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
• Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.

Deliverable: A five-item sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill

• Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
• Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
• Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area

• Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
• Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
• Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

• Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
• Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
• Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted improvement in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

• Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
• Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
• Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed next to the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

• Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
• Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
• Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

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 missing or sparse data in a private equity dataset?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
2. Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

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

Describe a time you had to build a predictive model for a long-term investment horizon.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

• How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
• 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?