Interview guides · Hastings Direct

Hastings Direct Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Causal inference drills for Hastings Direct data scientist prep: diff-in-diff, matching, instruments, and the limits of observed data.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Hastings Direct, you sit at the intersection of advanced statistical modeling and high-stakes insurance operations. Your work is fundamental to the company’s ability to predict risk, optimize pricing models, and enhance the digital experience for millions of customers. You are not just building models; you are directly influencing the financial health and competitive positioning of an insurance leader in a rapidly evolving digital marketplace.

Nearly every loop contains a round whose deliverable is a recommendation to someone non-technical. Practise stating a conclusion, the confidence attached to it, and the cost of being wrong in each direction, because that triple is the artifact being graded.

Focus areas

Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD
Report only matured cohorts for loss metrics
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost

Overview

The role involves navigating complex, large-scale datasets to derive actionable insights that impact core business functions, such as Telematics and Pricing. Whether you are refining risk-assessment algorithms or developing predictive models to improve operational efficiency, your contributions are expected to bridge the gap between technical complexity and business value. You will work within highly collaborative, cross-functional teams, requiring you to communicate sophisticated findings to stakeholders across the organization.

Hastings Direct prioritizes candidates who can demonstrate not only technical prowess but also a deep understanding of how data science directly serves the customer and the bottom line.

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

Using written premium as the denominator of a loss ratio

Premium is written at inception and earned pro rata across the exposure period, so in a growing book written premium runs ahead of earned premium and the loss ratio comes out too low, with the error reversing when the book shrinks. The numerator has the mirror-image problem if it omits incurred-but-not-reported reserves, since recent accident periods then look profitable twice over. Both sides must refer to the same exposure period, which is what an accident-period view at a fixed development age enforces.

Reading the most recent months of fraud and dispute rates as final

Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, and several reason codes run considerably longer, so the disputes belonging to a recent transaction month have simply not been filed yet. Any chart attributed by transaction date therefore slopes down at the right edge regardless of what is happening. The fix is to report only matured cohorts, or to apply development factors estimated from completed months and to show the estimate as an estimate.

Reporting a mean for a heavy-tailed metric without saying what it hides

For spend, session length or items per order, a small fraction of units carries most of the total, so the mean has a wide standard error and one account can move it. Fix the handling before you see the result: cap or winsorise at a pre-declared percentile, and report the median or the share above a threshold next to the mean. Capping changes the estimand, so say which question the capped number answers, and check how much of any difference comes from the top 0.1 percent of units.

Reading experiment results before checking the arm split

Compare observed arm counts against the intended allocation ratio, not an assumed even split, and set the alarm far below the conventional 0.05: at 0.05 roughly one healthy experiment in twenty trips it, which is why sample-ratio checks usually run at p < 0.001 or stricter. The test's power scales with sample size, so it misses a real diversion on a small experiment and fires on an imbalance too small to move the estimate on a very large one. A flag means go find the assignment or logging fault before reading any outcome, not report a mismatch.

Questions & practice

How would you evaluate the performance of a predictive model in a highly imbalanced dataset?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Explain the bias-variance trade-off and how it influences your model selection process.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.

Follow-up

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

Can you explain the trade-offs between different regression techniques in the context of insurance pricing?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.

Follow-up

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

What is your approach to feature engineering when working with Telematics data?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
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?

Write integrity checks for the authorization and settlement lifecycle

Easy · data quality · minor units · fx reconciliation

You are given fct_payment_authorization as a pandas DataFrame with auth_id, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency and settlement_fx_rate. Write a function returning one row per integrity check with the check name, failing row count, failing share and up to five example auth_id values. Cover at least six checks, one of which reconciles captured_amount_minor against settlement_amount_minor through settlement_fx_rate. Partial capture, zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture are all legitimate and must not be flagged.

Approach

Separate contract violations from observations before writing any code: an approved row carrying a decline_reason_code is structurally impossible, while a capture two days after requested_at is merely slow and belongs in a different severity tier.
Express each check as a boolean mask over the whole frame and collect the masks in a dict, so the summary table is one comprehension over mask.sum() rather than a row loop.
For the reconciliation, leave minor units before comparing: expected = captured_amount_minor / 10exponent[transaction_currency] * settlement_fx_rate * 10exponent[settlement_currency]. Build the exponent table covering zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies instead of assuming two everywhere.
Guard the legitimate cases explicitly so each mask fires only on the genuine contradiction: captured_amount_minor below amount_minor is partial capture, amount_minor of zero on an approved row is account verification, a null captured_at on a declined row is correct.
Sort the output by failing share times a stated severity weight, because a check firing on 0.01 percent of rows can still be the one that breaks a ledger reconciliation.

Worked solution (25 min)

Assert auth_id is unique, then build a currency exponent lookup that includes the zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies present in the data.
Define masks for: approved with non-null decline_reason_code; declined with non-null captured_at; captured_amount_minor above amount_minor with parent_auth_id null; captured_at before requested_at; settled_at before captured_at; is_reversal true with parent_auth_id null; settlement_currency differing from transaction_currency while settlement_fx_rate is null.
Add the exponent-aware reconciliation mask with a tolerance of one minor unit plus a small relative term.
Assemble a frame of check_name, n_failing, pct_failing and up to five sample auth_id values, ordered by severity then share.
Read five flagged rows per check by hand and confirm each is genuinely contradictory before reporting any counts.

Expected result: A DataFrame of at least eight rows, one per check, each with n_failing, pct_failing and example auth_id values. The reconciliation check should fire on a whole currency at once rather than on scattered rows, because an exponent error is systematic while an FX error is not.

Verify it yourself

Every mask returns false on three hand-constructed legitimate rows: a partial capture, a zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture.
Each pct_failing uses the denominator that check actually applies to, with reversals and verifications excluded where they are out of scope.
The reconciliation residual is centred at zero with spread under one minor unit; residuals clustered at exactly 100x or 0.01x mean an exponent is wrong, not a rate.

Follow-up

Which of these would you run as a blocking pipeline assertion and which as a monitored metric, and why?
The FX check fails on 3 percent of rows, all in one settlement currency. How do you decide between a data bug and a rounding convention?
How would you detect that a currency's minor-unit exponent is wrong in your reference table, using only the transaction data?

Attribute chargebacks to transaction month without fanning out

Medium · fan-out · cohort attribution · maturity

Report the matured first-chargeback rate. Numerator: fct_card_dispute rows whose dispute_stage is first_chargeback, representment, pre_arbitration or arbitration, attributed to the requested_at month of the linked fct_payment_authorization row rather than to opened_at. Denominator: settled authorizations in that same transaction month, meaning settled_at is not null and is_reversal is false. One authorization can carry more than one dispute case. Report only transaction months whose last day is at least 120 days old, and mark the remainder incomplete rather than showing them as low.

Approach

Compute the denominator from fct_payment_authorization alone, grouped by the requested_at month, before any dispute table is mentioned, so the join cannot touch it.
Compute the numerator as a separate aggregate: join disputes to their authorization only to recover requested_at, then count dispute rows per transaction month with the stage filter.
Join the two aggregates on the month key, which keeps the grain at one row per month and makes double counting structurally impossible rather than something you have to remember.
Apply the maturity gate on the month's last day plus 120 days against the current date, because a transaction on the final day of the month is the least mature one in the cohort.
Emit an explicit status column of 'final' or 'incomplete' instead of filtering immature months away silently, so a reader cannot mistake absence for zero.

Worked solution (30 min)

CTE denom: SELECT date_trunc('month', requested_at) AS txn_month, COUNT(*) AS settled_txns FROM fct_payment_authorization WHERE settled_at IS NOT NULL AND NOT is_reversal GROUP BY 1.
CTE numer: join fct_card_dispute to fct_payment_authorization on auth_id, filter dispute_stage to the four stages at or beyond first_chargeback, group by the same txn_month expression, count dispute rows.
LEFT JOIN numer onto denom on txn_month so months with zero disputes appear as zero rather than disappearing.
Derive the rate with a numeric cast and a status column driven by (txn_month + interval '1 month - 1 day') + interval '120 days' <= current_date.

Expected result: One row per transaction month with settled_txns, chargeback_cases, a rate in basis points, and a status of 'final' or 'incomplete'. The final months form a roughly flat series; the incomplete months at the right edge are visibly and correctly labelled rather than sloping to zero.

Verify it yourself

settled_txns for a given month is identical whether or not the dispute CTE is joined, which is the direct test that no fan-out occurred.
COUNT(DISTINCT auth_id) in the numerator is at or below the dispute row count; if they are equal, no authorization in the data carries two cases and the fan-out risk is latent rather than absent.
Every month flagged 'final' has its last day at least 120 days before the current date.
Attributing by opened_at instead shifts the series later and flattens the right edge, which demonstrates why the attribution key matters.

Follow-up

Should the numerator count dispute cases or disputed authorizations? Which one reconciles to the loss line, and which one to the operations queue?
Some reason codes allow filing well beyond 120 days. How would you estimate the tail on a month you have decided to call final?
How would you present the incomplete months so that a weekly reader does not read the right-hand slope as an improvement?

Vintage ninety-plus rate at twelve months on book

Medium · vintage analysis · window functions · right censoring

From fct_loan_performance_monthly, build a vintage table keyed on origination_month: the share of each cohort that ever reached days_past_due of 90 or more, or charge_off_flag = true, at or before months_on_book = 12. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so for any loan with restructured_flag true, evaluate only the month ends strictly before its first restructured month. Return origination_month, loans_funded, bad_loans and bad_rate. Exclude any cohort that does not yet have a months_on_book = 12 observation for every loan still on book.

Approach

Establish the cohort denominator from the first month end each loan appears at, months_on_book = 0, so a loan is counted once in its origination_month rather than once per monthly row.
Find each loan's first restructured month with MIN(as_of_month_end) FILTER (WHERE restructured_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id), or the equivalent grouped subquery, and keep it null for loans never restructured.
Flag a loan bad if any row with months_on_book <= 12 and as_of_month_end earlier than that first restructured month has days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag = true, which is what 'pre-restructure worst state' means in practice.
Gate maturity by requiring the cohort's newest month end to be at least 12 months after origination_month, and report immature cohorts as incomplete rather than letting them appear at a flattering low rate.
Aggregate to one row per origination_month and read the column downward, not across calendar time, because the whole point is comparing cohorts at equal age.

Follow-up

Should a restructure inside 12 months count as bad in its own right? Argue both sides and say what you would actually ship.
A loan that prepaid in full at month 4 never had a chance to go 90 days past due. In or out of the denominator, and why?
The 2025-11 cohort is two points worse at month 12 than its neighbours. What three queries do you run before you call it a credit-quality change?

Estimate the marginal effect of approval at a score cutoff

Hard · regression discontinuity · instrumental variables · selection

Policy auto-approves applications with bureau_score at or above 660 and routes 640 to 659 to manual review, which approves about 35 percent of them. You cannot randomise approvals. Using fct_loan_application and a bureau-sourced panel that reports 12-month serious delinquency on any trade line for approved and declined applicants alike, estimate the effect of approval at the margin. State the identifying assumptions you would test rather than assert, the estimator and its tuning choices, and exactly what the estimate does and does not license.

Approach

Set the design up as a fuzzy regression discontinuity, because crossing 660 changes approval probability sharply but not from zero to one. Let Z = 1{bureau_score >= 660} be the instrument, approval be the treatment, and 12-month serious delinquency be the outcome. The estimate is the ratio of the jump in the outcome to the jump in approval probability, which is two-stage least squares with Z as the instrument and identifies a local average treatment effect for compliers at the cutoff.
Insist on the bureau panel as the outcome source. Funded loans exist on both sides of 660 only because manual review approves some applicants below it, and those are selected on whatever the reviewer saw; an outcome defined only on funded loans would reintroduce exactly the selection the design is meant to remove.
Test the assumptions instead of listing them. Check density continuity of bureau_score at 660 with a McCrary-style or local-polynomial density test, since brokers and applicants can sometimes trigger a bureau refresh and a heaped density at the threshold kills the design. Check that pre-determined covariates, including declared_annual_income_minor, channel, product_code and model_version, are continuous at the cutoff. Check policy_rule_hits and the pricing table for any other rule that fires at exactly 660, because a second discontinuity at the same point is not separable from the first.
Choose the estimator deliberately. Local linear regression with a triangular kernel and an MSE-optimal bandwidth, with bias-corrected robust confidence intervals. Do not fit a high-order global polynomial, which puts weight on observations far from the cutoff and produces artefacts at the boundary. Because bureau_score is an integer, the running variable has mass points, so cluster standard errors by score value or use an approach designed for discrete running variables.
Respect outcome maturity. Include only application cohorts with a full 12 months of bureau observation; a recent cohort with partial observation will look cleaner and will drag the estimate.
State the limits in the deliverable. The estimate is the effect at 660 on applicants whose approval status is determined by the threshold. It does not license moving the cutoff to 620, because both the first stage and the outcome relationship differ away from 660 and because a policy change at scale shifts the applicant mix. Report bandwidth sensitivity alongside the point estimate.

Worked solution (40 min)

Assemble the application-level panel: bureau_score, decision, funded status, and the bureau-sourced 12-month serious delinquency flag, restricted to cohorts with 12 full months of outcome observation.
Plot the first stage, being approval probability against bureau_score in one-point bins, and confirm a visible jump of roughly 0.65 at 660 (about 1.00 above against about 0.35 below).
Plot the reduced form, being delinquency against bureau_score in the same bins, and read the jump at 660 off a local linear fit on each side.
Estimate the Wald ratio as reduced form over first stage, equivalently two-stage least squares with Z = 1{score >= 660}, using a triangular kernel, an MSE-optimal bandwidth, bias-corrected robust intervals, and standard errors clustered by integer score.
Run the assumption battery: density continuity at 660, covariate continuity, placebo cutoffs at 650 and 670, and bandwidth sensitivity at 0.5x and 2x the selected bandwidth.
Write the result as a complier average effect at 660 with its interval, its bandwidth sensitivity table, and an explicit sentence on what it does not license.

Expected result: A fuzzy RDD estimate delivered as the Wald ratio, jump in 12-month serious delinquency divided by a first-stage jump in approval probability of about 0.65, fitted by local linear regression with a triangular kernel at an MSE-optimal bandwidth, with robust bias-corrected intervals and standard errors clustered on the integer score. It is reported as a local average treatment effect for compliers at 660 only, accompanied by the density test, the covariate-continuity table and the bandwidth sensitivity, with an explicit statement that it does not support moving the cutoff.

Verify it yourself

Reduced form divided by first stage must equal the two-stage least squares coefficient to numerical precision; if it does not, the sample or the bandwidth differs between the two fits.
Placebo cutoffs at 650 and 670 should show no jump in either the first stage or the outcome.
Pre-determined covariates should be continuous at 660; a jump in income or channel mix at the threshold means applicants or brokers are sorting and the design is compromised.
The point estimate should be stable when the bandwidth is halved and doubled; large movement means the local linear fit is being driven by observations far from the cutoff.

Follow-up

Manual reviewers below the cutoff see documents the score does not. What does that do to the monotonicity assumption, and how would you look for defiers?
You are offered a randomised approval band across 650 to 659 for one quarter. What does it buy you that the discontinuity does not, and how would you price the expected loss of running it?
The density test shows a modest pile-up just above 660. What are the possible mechanisms, and which of them leave the design usable?

Build the metric tree for a new instalment loan

Medium · metric tree · vintage analysis · leading indicators

A new instalment loan product launches next quarter. Build the metric tree from fct_loan_application and fct_loan_performance_monthly: one primary metric, the intermediate metrics that explain it, and the guardrails. The product owner wants a go or no-go call six weeks after the first disbursements, while the primary outcome is defined at twelve months on book. Name the leading indicator you would accept for the six-week call, state its bias in one sentence, and say what you would refuse to conclude from it.

Approach

Put the primary where the trade is real: risk-adjusted margin per 1,000 units of principal originated, evaluated at months_on_book = 12, charging funding cost at the internal transfer rate. Approval rate and origination volume can both be moved in a week by lowering the cutoff, and neither charges anything for the consequence.
Lay the tree out by layer so a movement can be localised: approval rate on a decision-reaching denominator (decision in ('approve','decline'), excluding withdrawn and expired) feeds offer-to-funded conversion within 30 days by offered_apr_bps band, which feeds the vintage 90+ rate at months_on_book = 12, which feeds risk-adjusted yield on average balances. Each layer's denominator is the numerator of the layer above.
Choose guardrails that catch the opposite failure to the primary's. A margin target is trivially met by shrinking the book to its safest slice, so report approval rate within each model_pd_12m band, where that collapse shows up first, alongside adverse-impact monitoring of the decision rule under compliance review.
For the six-week call, accept first-payment behaviour: the share of funded loans missing the first scheduled payment, or reaching days_past_due at or above 30 by months_on_book = 3. Estimate its relationship to the 12-month 90+ rate from completed vintages of the nearest comparable product, and report the dispersion of that ratio across those vintages as the uncertainty rather than quoting a point estimate.
State the bias in one sentence: early default is loaded toward application fraud and income misstatement and is close to blind to affordability deterioration that develops over months, which is the failure mode a new product with a new population is most likely to have, and the historical ratio breaks exactly when the population or the macro environment changes.
Say what six weeks cannot answer: nothing about the 12-month level in absolute terms, and nothing whatsoever about the applicants the policy declined.

Follow-up

The first vintage looks excellent at three months on book. What would make you distrust it?
How do restructured loans enter your twelve-month numerator?
Which metric in this tree would you refuse to put on a weekly dashboard, and why?

Portfolio delinquency improving while the loan book doubles

Easy · vintage analysis · age mix · right censoring

The blended 90-plus days-past-due rate across fct_loan_performance_monthly fell from 3.1 to 2.2 percent over two quarters while monthly funded volume roughly doubled. Credit leadership wants to know whether underwriting improved. Columns: loan_id, as_of_month_end, origination_month, months_on_book, original_principal_minor, principal_balance_minor, days_past_due, delinquency_bucket, restructured_flag, charge_off_flag, charge_off_date. Produce the view that answers the question honestly, and state in one sentence what the blended rate can and cannot tell you.

Approach

Name the mechanical floor first. A first instalment falls due roughly a month after funding, so a loan cannot reach dpd_90_plus until around its fourth month on book. Every recent origination therefore enters the denominator with a numerator that is structurally zero.
Build a vintage table: rows origination_month, columns months_on_book, cell equal to the share of that cohort whose worst days_past_due reached 90 or more, or whose charge_off_flag became true, at or before that age.
Use each loan's worst state to date rather than its current bucket, and take the pre-restructure worst state, because restructuring resets days_past_due and would otherwise read as a cure.
Compare cohorts only at equal months_on_book, and render cells beyond a cohort's current maturity as absent rather than zero, so the table cannot be misread left to right.
Decompose the blended move into an age-mix component and a within-age component, so the write-up states how much of the 0.9 point improvement is arithmetic rather than asserting it.

Follow-up

What does the diagonal of a vintage table represent, and when is reading it the right thing to do?
How would a change in charge-off timing policy show up in this table, and how would you separate it from credit quality?
Which single chart goes in front of the credit committee, and what do you say when someone asks for the blended series anyway?

Suggested practice checklist

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

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

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

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

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

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

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

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

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

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

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

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

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

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

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

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

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

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

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

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

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

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

Being wrong in public

A number you shipped turned out to be wrong, and someone had already acted on it. That is one of the most useful stories a data person can carry. What is being scored is how fast you noticed, who you told first, and what you changed in the process so the same class of error could not repeat quietly.

How do you handle missing or noisy data in a real-world production environment?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Recommend a decision whose true outcome matures a year later

Hard · decision under censoring · leading indicators · staged rollout

An underwriting rule change must be decided in six weeks. Its real outcome, the vintage 90-plus rate at months_on_book 12 in fct_loan_performance_monthly, matures in a year. The executive wants a yes or no, not a range. Randomising the credit decision across the whole population is not available. Name the leading indicator you would accept, state its bias and the direction of that bias, define the decision rule and stopping condition before any rollout starts, and say what reading would make you recommend reversing the change.

Approach

Fix the readout before the rollout, because a readout chosen after the data arrives is a story rather than a decision rule: indicator, window, threshold and reversal condition all go in writing first.
Choose the leading indicator on its measured relationship to the matured outcome in historical vintages rather than on availability. Early delinquency, typically the share reaching dpd_1_29 or missing a first scheduled payment by months_on_book 3, is the usual candidate, and you quantify how well it predicted the 12-month rate across past cohorts.
State the bias and its direction plainly: early delinquency under-represents default that emerges later and is contaminated by servicing and payment-date effects, so treat it as a floor on risk rather than an estimate of it.
Buy identification where full randomisation is unavailable: a narrow randomised approval band around the cutoff, or a staged rollout by channel or region read as a difference-in-differences, with the parallel-trends assumption stated and checked in the pre-period rather than assumed.
Give the executive the binary they asked for with the trigger attached in the same sentence: yes, conditional on the month-3 indicator staying inside a stated band, with an automatic hold if it breaches.

Follow-up

How would you validate that the month-3 indicator predicts the 12-month outcome, and what evidence would invalidate it mid-rollout?
Compliance refuses a randomised band. What is your next-best identification strategy, and what precision do you lose by taking it?

Explain an incomplete dispute chart to a non-technical executive

Easy · dispute maturity · stakeholder communication · right-censoring

A finance lead is looking at first-chargeback rate by transaction month, built from fct_card_dispute joined to fct_payment_authorization on auth_id and attributed to requested_at. The last three months slope sharply down and the lead wants to announce a fraud improvement at tomorrow's review. Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, so those months are not complete. In five minutes, with no statistics vocabulary, explain why the decline is not yet evidence and say exactly what you would put on the slide instead.

Approach

Lead with the mechanism in the listener's own terms, not with the statistical name for it: a dispute is attributed to the month the transaction happened, but it can be filed up to roughly 120 days later, so recent months contain only the disputes filed so far.
Show completeness rather than arguing about the rate: for each transaction month, plot the share of its eventual disputes already filed, estimated from months that are fully matured. The last three months will sit visibly below 100 percent.
Replace the chart with two artefacts: a matured series that stops 120 days back and is labelled final, and a development-factor estimate for the immature months drawn as a dashed range and labelled an estimate.
Hand over one sentence the executive can repeat without you in the room: the recent months look better because the disputes have not arrived yet, not because fewer will arrive.
Offer a weekly signal they can watch instead, such as the risk-score mix of approved volume or the decline-rule hit rate, and state up front what it does and does not predict.

Follow-up

The deck ships tomorrow regardless. What exactly goes on the slide, and what wording do you insist on?
How would you estimate the development factors, and how would you notice if they had shifted?