HCL Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

At HCL, the Data Scientist role is a high-impact position centered on bridging the gap between massive, unstructured datasets and strategic business value. You will act as a technical architect, designing and implementing advanced machine learning models that directly influence client service delivery and internal operational efficiency. Your work will involve transforming complex data into actionable insights that guide decision-making for stakeholders across the organization.

Most of the loop measures decision-making under uncertainty rather than recall. You are scored on whether you state your assumptions, commit to an estimate you can defend, and say explicitly what evidence would change it.

Focus areas

• Pick a randomisation unit that respects interference
• Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
• Turn a vague request into a measurable question

Overview

This role is particularly critical because you are not just building models; you are solving real-world challenges for global clients. You will operate at the intersection of advanced analytics and product optimization, utilizing cutting-edge tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch to extract value from large-scale data. Whether it is refining a predictive model or diagnosing a shift in performance metrics, your technical rigor will be the primary driver of innovation at HCL.

The HCL interview process

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

Initial Screening

Whoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.

What to demonstrate

• Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
• Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
• Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed

How to prepare

• Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
• Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
• Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands

Deep-Dive Technical Sessions

This round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
• Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
• Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
• Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it

How to prepare

• Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
• Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
• Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither

Case Studies

A case round is decided by whether you leave the interviewer with a recommendation, not by how much analysis you narrate on the way there. The prompt is open on purpose, so the first job is to convert it into a decision someone could act on: ask what would be done differently depending on the answer. From there name the quantity that would settle it, state the assumptions you need, and commit. Candidates who cover more ground than anyone expected and still end on "it depends" score below candidates who scoped narrowly and said what they would do.

What to demonstrate

• Whether the version of the question you choose to answer is genuinely narrower than the prompt and still worth answering
• Whether the recommendation arrives as an action with a number attached, rather than as a summary of what you looked at
• Whether assumptions are stated at the moment you rely on them, instead of collected into a disclaimer at the end
• Whether you notice when a branch you are exploring would not change the decision either way

How to prepare

• Take six open prompts and write only the scoping move for each: the one-sentence question you would actually answer and the decision it feeds. Give yourself three minutes per prompt and stop there.
• Put a five-minute warning into every practice case and force a closing statement that names the action, the result that would justify it, and the result that would reverse it.
• Record one case and count how long you talked before naming a measurable quantity. Past roughly five minutes, what you are calling scoping is narration.

Where candidates lose points

Comparing cohort retention curves of different maturities, or building the curve from users who are still present

A cohort four weeks old has no week-8 value, so an average taken across cohorts silently drops young cohorts from the later columns and keeps them in the earlier ones. The curve then bends upward at the tail, and the reading that 'retention is improving over time' is an artefact of which cohorts survived to be measured. The same error appears in the denominator when retention is computed over users active in the current period rather than over the full original cohort, which conditions on survival and guarantees a flattering number. The fix is a triangle: fix the cohort at signup, bound every window on both sides, and only compare cells where every cohort has had the full elapsed time, publishing the rest as blank rather than as a partial average.

Slicing a flat experiment until a segment reaches significance

Testing one metric across twenty segments at a nominal 5% level produces a significant result about two thirds of the time when nothing is happening anywhere, and the segment that surfaces is by construction the one with the most favourable noise. The reported effect in that slice is then badly overstated, because selection on significance conditions the estimate on being large. What makes it dangerous rather than merely wrong is that a post-hoc segment always has a plausible story attached, so it survives the meeting. The controls are declaring the small number of segments of interest before launch, correcting across the ones tested, and treating anything discovered afterwards as a hypothesis that needs its own adequately-powered test rather than a finding.

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.

Defining the cohort on a post-treatment condition

Ask how rows entered the table. Filtering on something that treatment itself influences, such as users who finished onboarding or accounts still active at ninety days, breaks comparability between arms; define the population at an entry point that precedes exposure and keep everyone in it.

Questions & practice

Describe a situation where your model results were challenged by a colleague; how did you handle it?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

1. Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
2. Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
3. 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?

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?

Cluster bootstrap for a per-session rate randomised on users

Hard · cluster bootstrap · randomisation unit · variance

An experiment randomised on user_id reports a per-session conversion rate, so sessions inside a user are correlated. Input: one row per session with user_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}. Write a cluster bootstrap from scratch: resample users with replacement within each arm, keep every session of a drawn user, recompute each arm's ratio of converted sessions to sessions, and take the difference. Return the point estimate, a 95 percent percentile interval from at least 2,000 resamples, the naive session-level interval that ignores clustering, and the ratio of their widths.

Approach

1. Name the estimand precisely: it is a ratio of sums, sum(converted) over sum(sessions) within an arm, not the mean of per-user rates. Those differ whenever session counts vary across users, and the ratio is what the reported metric is.
2. Resample the cluster, not the row. Draw n_users user ids with replacement inside each arm and take every session belonging to each draw, including duplicate draws of the same user. Keeping the user count fixed per arm rather than the session count is what preserves the sampling design.
3. Precompute per-user (converted_sum, session_count) once, so each resample is two vector lookups and a division rather than a repeated filter over the session frame. That turns 2,000 resamples from minutes into under a second.
4. Take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the 2,000 differences for the interval, and report the point estimate from the full data rather than from the bootstrap mean, since the bootstrap mean carries the resampling bias.
5. Compute the naive interval from the session-level binomial standard error and compare widths. The expected inflation is roughly sqrt(1 + (m-1)*rho), with m the mean sessions per user and rho the intraclass correlation of converted within users, so a computed ratio far from that value points at a bug in one of the two intervals.

Follow-up

• Users average 3.4 sessions and the intraclass correlation is 0.12. What width ratio do you predict before running it, and does your bootstrap land there?
• Give the delta-method standard error for this ratio and say when you would prefer it to the bootstrap.
• Half the users in the treatment arm have exactly one session. What does that do to the cluster bootstrap's coverage, and how would you check it?

Can you explain the difference between RANK, DENSE_RANK, and ROW_NUMBER in SQL window functions?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
2. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
3. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.

Follow-up

• How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
• What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

Describe your process for handling missing data in a large SQL dataset.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

• How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
• What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?

How do you optimize a query that is running significantly slower than expected?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
2. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
3. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.

Follow-up

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

Read an experiment from first exposure, not assignment

Hard · experiments · window-functions · srm

fct_experiment_exposure holds experiment_id, unit_type, unit_id, variant, user_id, assigned_at_utc, first_exposed_at_utc, is_in_analysis_population and planned_end_utc. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, and carries events up to a known data cut, :data_cut_utc. For one experiment randomised on unit_type = 'user', return per variant: exposed units, units with at least one core action in the seven days after that unit's own first exposure, the rate, and the variant share of exposed units. Only units whose seven-day window has fully elapsed as of the data cut belong in the readout. Units appearing under more than one variant are excluded from both arms and counted separately.

Approach

1. Run the contamination pass as an aggregate, not a window: SELECT unit_id FROM fct_experiment_exposure WHERE experiment_id = :exp GROUP BY unit_id HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT variant) > 1, then anti-join it away. PostgreSQL rejects COUNT(DISTINCT variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) outright, since DISTINCT is not implemented for window functions; if you want the test inline, MIN(variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) <> MAX(variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) is the equivalent that does run.
2. Do not resolve contamination by keeping the earliest variant. A unit that saw both arms carries treatment from both, so assigning it to either one biases that arm.
3. Define the population as is_in_analysis_population = TRUE AND unit_type = 'user' AND first_exposed_at_utc < planned_end_utc AND first_exposed_at_utc + interval '7 days' <= :data_cut_utc. The horizon filter is what makes the readout reproducible next week instead of drifting with every re-run; the data-cut filter is the one that actually buys seven days of follow-up, since a unit exposed an hour before the horizon otherwise contributes an hour of observation to a seven-day rate.
4. Measure the outcome on a per-unit relative window: LEFT JOIN fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and occurred_at_utc in [first_exposed_at_utc, first_exposed_at_utc + interval '7 days'). LEFT JOIN so units with no outcome stay in the denominator at zero rather than being deleted by an inner join.
5. Check the sample ratio before reading the effect: variant share of exposed units against the intended split, tested as a binomial. Run it on the truncated population as well as on the full exposed set, because if one arm exposes later on average the data-cut filter removes more of that arm and can manufacture a ratio mismatch the randomisation did not have. A mismatch on the full set means the exposure data is not a valid randomisation and invalidates the readout rather than being a footnote under it.
6. Report the per-variant rate, the absolute difference, and the fact that the variance unit is unit_id. That is straightforward here only because the grain is already one row per user; a per-session outcome under user randomisation would need a delta-method or bootstrap standard error instead.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. Count units per variant and units with more than one variant; report the contaminated count before anything else.
2. Build the exposed population CTE with both the horizon filter and the seven-days-before-data-cut filter, assert one row per unit_id, and record per variant how many units the second filter removed.
3. LEFT JOIN the bounded outcome events and flag conversion with a boolean aggregate.
4. Aggregate per variant to exposed, converted, rate and share, and run the binomial check on the share, both before and after the truncation.
5. Re-run with a fixed calendar window from experiment_start_utc and record the difference as the size of the dilution you avoided.

Expected result: One row per variant with exposed, converted, rate and share, plus a scalar count of excluded contaminated units. Every retained unit was first exposed at least seven days before the data cut, so each one has a full seven days of observation and the rates are directly comparable.

Verify it yourself

• Exposed counts across variants sum to the population count minus the contaminated units.
• MAX(first_exposed_at_utc) among retained units is at least seven days before :data_cut_utc.
• Variant shares sum to 1.
• No unit_id contributes to two variant rows.
• The truncation drops a similar share of each arm; if it does not, note the imbalance alongside the SRM result rather than reading the effect.
• Swapping the relative window for a calendar one changes the rates; if it does not, exposure timing is balanced and you can say so.

Follow-up

• Some units were assigned days before they were exposed. What does analysing the assigned set instead do to the estimated effect, and in which direction?
• The split is 51/49 on 400,000 exposed units. Do you read the result?
• The treatment arm exposes on average two days later than control. What does that do to a fixed calendar outcome window, and which arm does it favour?

How do you decide between multiple metrics when they are moving in opposite directions?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
2. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
3. Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

• Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
• How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

If you notice a sudden drop in a key user engagement metric, what steps do you take to diagnose the cause?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
2. Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
3. Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

Follow-up

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

How would you design a metric to measure the success of a new product feature?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

1. Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
2. Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
3. State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

Follow-up

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

What does statistical significance actually mean in the context of a product launch?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
2. Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
3. Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

• How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
• What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

What is the difference between Type I and Type II errors, and how do you mitigate them?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
2. Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
3. Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.

Follow-up

• What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
• How would you handle interference between treated and control units?

A completion rate the owning team can move without fixing anything

Medium · gaming · instrumentation · funnel

A team's target is core-flow completion rate: distinct fct_event.flow_instance_id with a 'flow_completed' event within 30 minutes of its 'flow_started' and no 'error_shown' carrying the same flow_instance_id in between, over distinct flow_instance_id with a 'flow_started' in the window, split by surface and app_version. The same team owns the client that emits those events and the tracking plan that defines them. List the ways this rate rises without any user completing more flows, then redefine the metric and its guardrails so those routes are closed. Deliverable: the hardened definition.

Approach

1. Work the emission side first, because that is what the team controls: delay minting flow_started until after the first screen so the highest-dropping attempts leave the denominator; stop emitting or rename error_shown; mint a fresh flow_instance_id on each retry so one failed attempt becomes several attempts whose last one completes; move flow_completed earlier in the flow.
2. Sort those moves by where they are visible. None of them shows in the rate itself; three of them show only in volume, which is why the denominator has to be published on the same chart as the rate.
3. Re-anchor the numerator on something outside the flow's own instrumentation: require a downstream is_core_action = TRUE event for the same user_id within 30 minutes of flow_completed, so a completion only counts when it produced the thing the flow exists to produce.
4. Add the guardrail that catches the retry route specifically: mean and p90 flow_instance_id per user per day, with the rule written down that a rising completion rate alongside rising attempts per user is a regression and not a win.
5. Make definition changes visible instead of forbidden: stamp a tracking-plan version on the series and re-base the history when event semantics or the 30-minute window change, rather than splicing two definitions into one line.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Enumerate at least four emission-side moves and mark for each whether it shows in the rate or only in volume.
2. Pin the denominator: publish flow_started per 1,000 sessions and per distinct user beside the rate.
3. Rewrite the numerator to require a downstream core action for the same user within 30 minutes.
4. Add the attempts-per-user guardrail with its interpretation rule stated as a sentence.
5. Version the definition and write the re-base policy for the historical series.

Expected result: A hardened definition in which each enumerated gaming route is either blocked by the numerator, exposed by a published volume series, or forced to surface as a definition version change.

Verify it yourself

• Replay one untouched historical week under the old and hardened definitions. A large gap means the hardening changed the meaning of the metric, not only the incentives around it.
• flow_started per 1,000 sessions should be roughly continuous across an app_version boundary unless the flow's entry point genuinely moved; a step change there is an instrumentation change.
• Attempts per user and completion rate should not rise together within one build.

Follow-up

• How do you distinguish a genuine instrumentation fix from gaming, given both look like a step change confined to one release?
• The jump appears in exactly one app_version. Does that exonerate the team or implicate it?
• What do you do with eighteen months of history once the definition is hardened?

Attribute a flow-completion drop to one client build

Medium · release-regression · instrumentation · staged-rollout

Core-flow completion rate on surface = 'ios', defined as distinct flow_instance_id reaching 'flow_completed' within 30 minutes of 'flow_started' with no 'error_shown' on the same id in between, fell from 78% to 71% over four days. A new iOS build began a staged rollout on day one. Using fct_event columns flow_id, flow_instance_id, app_version, event_name, user_id and occurred_at_utc, produce the completion rate per build per day, size the loss in absolute completions, and say whether the fix is a rollback. Treat the possibility that the instrumentation changed rather than the flow.

Approach

1. Cut the rate by app_version and day, each build against its own denominator. A pooled series during a staged rollout is a weighted average whose weights move daily, so it declines in proportion to the rollout share even when the old build is perfectly flat; confirming that proportionality is itself the evidence the regression is build-specific rather than environmental.
2. Test the denominator before believing the rate. Compute flow_started events per distinct user_id on each build: if the new build re-mints flow_instance_id on retry, or fails to carry the id from start to completion, the denominator inflates and the numerator falls with nothing changing for the user.
3. Normalise to a user-level outcome that is immune to the id question, namely completions per distinct user_id per day on each build. This is the number that says whether anyone actually failed to finish.
4. Check the error path: pull error_shown counts and their properties for flow_instance_id values on the new build. A genuine regression produces errors; an instrumentation break produces missing completions with no corresponding error volume, and the two prescribe different fixes.
5. Size the real loss as the per-user completion gap multiplied by daily users on the new build, and give the rollback recommendation conditional on the error evidence rather than on the rate.

Follow-up

• The rollout is at 45% and product wants to go to 100% tomorrow. What do you say, and what would you need by when?
• If the flow_instance_id is genuinely being re-minted, what is the correct historical treatment of the four affected days?
• How would you have caught this on day one instead of day four?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly 90 minutes a night on weekdays with one longer weekend block. The plan deliberately cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that finishing one thing a night beats half-starting four.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and set a baseline

• Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list for everything else and keep it visible all week.
• Take one 20-minute SQL prompt and one 10-minute metric question cold, and write the single sentence that says what blocked each attempt, since that sentence is what decides which two topics get the most evenings.
• Set the week's one rule: one problem finished to completion every night, including the night you only have 40 minutes.

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

Day 2 — One query pattern, written three times

• Choose the single pattern most likely to appear (a cohort retention grid, or a funnel counted by user) and write it three times from a blank file rather than editing the previous attempt.
• On the third attempt, write the grain of every CTE as a comment before writing its body.
• Stop at 90 minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix with another hour.

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

Day 3 — Only the statistics you will be asked to defend

• Write, in under 200 words, how you would decide whether a difference between two groups is real: the test, its assumptions, and what you would switch to when an assumption fails.
• Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a difference in proportions by hand on realistic numbers, then write in one sentence what changes if the two samples are paired rather than independent.
• Write your answer to "what does a p-value mean", check it against a definition, and delete the version that describes it as the probability the hypothesis is true.

Deliverable: A 200-word written answer and one hand-computed interval you can reproduce under pressure.

Day 4 — One case, and the assumptions holding it up

• Answer one product case aloud in 20 minutes with a recording running, then listen back with a pen and mark every claim you asserted without saying what it rested on: an assumed user behaviour, an assumed data source, an assumed baseline rate, an assumed grain.
• Pick the three assumptions the recommendation actually depends on, write how you would check each one against data, and say which one being wrong would flip the recommendation rather than merely weaken it.
• Write the four-step structure you used onto a card small enough to hold in working memory when you are nervous.

Deliverable: One recording, three load-bearing assumptions each with a written check, and a four-step structure card.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

• Write a 90-second version and a four-minute version of your main project, and time both out loud rather than reading them.
• Prepare answers to 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 able to say exactly where that number 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 a longer weekend block

• Run a 60-minute mock covering query work, a case and a behavioural question in a single sitting with no breaks, 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 20-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning of the interview: one query you can already write from a blank file, one metric you can define out loud, and nothing you have never seen before.
• Re-read only your own notes from this week, and open no new material.
• Write down the logistics: the tool you will be asked to work in, whether lookups are allowed, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

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

Ambiguous requests are the test

Most of the questions in this section reduce to one thing: can you be handed a vague request and come back with something useful? Prepare an example where the ask was underspecified, you chose an interpretation, and you said out loud which interpretation you chose. Describing how you narrowed the question matters more than the technique you eventually used.

Give an example of a project where you had to pivot your approach due to unexpected data findings.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
2. Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
3. 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?

Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched

Hard · self-assessment · attribution · communication

You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.

Approach

1. Recognise what is being probed: whether you apply to your own work the causal standard you would apply to somebody else's roadmap claim. Nearly everyone who would reject 'accounts that do Y retain better' will write 'I drove a 14% increase' without noticing it is the same error with a friendlier subject.
2. Sort the work by the kind of evidence it can carry. The shipped experiment is the only item with a randomised estimate, so it is the only one where an effect size is defensible, and you claim the interval rather than the point estimate.
3. Claim the three flat experiments as decisions prevented and price them. Features not built, or built differently, on evidence, with the engineering weeks reallocated as the number somebody else can verify. A defensible null is a delivered decision and should be written as one.
4. Claim the definition fix as correctness, not as improvement. The old figure was overstated by a specific percentage and appeared in a specific set of recurring documents; the impact is the change it produced in the forecast built on top of it, not a change in churn itself.
5. Claim the dashboard on usage and displacement: distinct weekly users of it, and the ad-hoc request count for six months before against six months after. If the request log does not exist, record the claim as unverified rather than estimating it upward.
6. Disclaim the 14% explicitly and once. State that it cannot be separated from seasonality, other teams' launches and a pricing change, and bound your own contribution from above using the shipped experiment's interval converted into headline units.

Follow-up

• Your shipped experiment's interval was +0.2pp to +1.4pp on activation. How much of the 14% can that account for, and how do you say so without undercutting yourself?
• A peer in the same cycle claims the full 14%. What, if anything, do you do about it?
• If you could only keep two of your three claims, which do you drop, and why that one?

Disagree with a product manager's roadmap claim using data

Medium · causal inference · selection bias · stakeholder

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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