Interview guides · HII

HII Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

HII data scientist prep: probability, sampling distributions, and stating the assumption behind every test you run.

The 60-second brief

At HII (Huntington Ingalls Industries), a Data Scientist plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of national security and defense technologies. As America's largest military shipbuilder and a premier provider of professional services to government partners, HII relies on data science to drive efficiency, innovation, and strategic decision-making. Whether you are optimizing complex manufacturing pipelines at Newport News Shipbuilding or developing advanced predictive models for defense systems within Mission Technologies, your work directly impacts the readiness and safety of the nation's armed forces.

Product-sense cases reward reasoning from a mechanism to a testable prediction. Reciting every metric you can name reads as pattern matching; naming the single quantity that would move if your explanation were true reads as thinking.

Focus areas

Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
Size an experiment before anyone launches it
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

A Data Scientist at HII does not work in an isolated research lab. Instead, you are integrated into the core of the business, translating massive, complex datasets into actionable operational intelligence. This includes developing predictive maintenance models for naval fleets, designing advanced business intelligence (BI) systems for executive leadership, and engineering state-of-the-art AI/ML algorithms to support tactical defense applications. The sheer scale of the engineering challenges and the critical nature of the mission make this role both highly prestigious and deeply rewarding.

To succeed in this position, you must possess a unique blend of technical expertise and strong communication skills. You will collaborate closely with naval architects, hardware engineers, program managers, and military stakeholders who may not have a background in data science. Your ability to bridge the gap between complex mathematical modeling and real-world physical engineering is what will make you an indispensable asset to the HII team.

The HII interview process

HII candidates report 2 rounds · ≈ 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Phone Screen

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

Hiring Manager Interview

Much of this round runs on your own history, but the manager is not collecting a project list. They are working out what it is like when something goes wrong on your watch: how late the bad news tends to arrive, and whether a number you hand over has been checked by anyone including you. That is why the strongest material is a project where you can describe the part that did not work and what it cost. A result you cannot take full responsibility for, however clean, gives them nothing to trust you with afterwards.

What to demonstrate

Whether you volunteer the limits of a result you are proud of, or wait to be pushed onto them
How errors surfaced in your past work, and whether you or somebody else found them
Whether the scope you claim matches the level of detail you can still produce about it
What you did the first time a stakeholder acted on something of yours that turned out to be wrong

How to prepare

Rebuild one headline figure from memory down to the join and the filter, so a question about the denominator does not stall the conversation
For each project you raise, write the sentence you would say to someone who had already acted on a number that later turned out wrong
Mark which parts of a project were yours and which belonged to other people, and state that boundary yourself before anyone asks

Where candidates lose points

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.

Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel

The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.

Reading a dozen metrics with no multiplicity control

Nominate one primary metric before launch and treat the rest as guardrails or exploratory, with Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg applied when you intend to make claims from them. Twenty independent tests at 0.05 under the null produce at least one false positive about 64 percent of the time.

Optimising accuracy on a heavily imbalanced target

State the base rate first, then choose the metric from the relative cost of a false positive against a false negative: precision and recall at the operating threshold, PR-AUC, or expected cost. At a 1 percent positive rate, predicting the majority class for everyone scores 99 percent accuracy and is worthless.

Questions & practice

Split a pooled conversion drop into rate and mix

Medium · mix shift · decomposition · pandas

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (25 min)

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

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

Verify it yourself

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

Follow-up

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

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?

Sessionise an event stream with gap and midnight rules

Hard · sessionisation · vectorisation · event streams

Sessionise a raw event stream. Input: a DataFrame with visitor_id, user_id (often NULL), occurred_at_utc and event_name, unsorted, up to 5 million rows. A session breaks when the gap from that visitor's previous event exceeds 30 minutes, and is force-closed at UTC midnight so no session spans two calendar dates. A gap of exactly 30 minutes does not break. Emit one row per session with session_id, visitor_id, the user_id as of the last event in the session, started_at_utc, ended_at_utc, session_date, duration_seconds and event_count. Vectorise; do not loop per visitor.

Approach

Sort by ['visitor_id', 'occurred_at_utc', 'event_id'] once, then express the whole problem as one boolean vector: a row starts a new session when the visitor changed, or the gap exceeds 30 minutes, or the UTC date differs from the previous row's UTC date. Cumsum that vector and you have the session key.
Get the comparison direction right on the gap: the rule is strictly greater than 1800 seconds, so an event at exactly 1800 seconds continues the session. Write it as gap > pd.Timedelta(minutes=30), and make the tie a test case rather than an assumption.
Derive the midnight break from the date change, not from inserting synthetic boundary rows. A date change implies a break even when the gap is two seconds, which is precisely the force-close rule and is why the two conditions are ORed rather than one subsuming the other.
Aggregate with a single groupby on the session key: min and max of occurred_at_utc, size for event_count, and last for user_id, which is correct because the frame is already sorted so 'last' is the final event in the session. That is the identity-as-of-session-end rule.
Compute duration_seconds as (max - min).dt.total_seconds(), which makes a single-event session 0 seconds. Say so explicitly, because a downstream mean session duration is sensitive to whether single-event sessions are 0 or excluded.

Follow-up

Sessions are used as the denominator of a conversion rate. How does moving the inactivity gap from 30 to 45 minutes move that rate, and in which direction?
A visitor's clock is 40 minutes ahead, so their events arrive with future occurred_at values. What does your sessioniser do, and what would you rather it did?
The same person signs up mid-session on mobile and continues on desktop. How many sessions and how many users does your output show, and is that the right answer?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)

Count units per variant and units with more than one variant; report the contaminated count before anything else.
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.
LEFT JOIN the bounded outcome events and flag conversion with a boolean aggregate.
Aggregate per variant to exposed, converted, rate and share, and run the binomial check on the share, both before and after the truncation.
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?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?

Reminder volume where the guardrail opposes the primary metric

Medium · engagement · guardrails · trade-offs

The growth team proposes tripling weekly reminder email volume. The north star is weekly active accounts completing a core action, counted on account_id from fct_event (is_core_action, account_id, occurred_at_utc, surface). Its stated guardrail is week-over-week repeat rate together with notification opt-out and unsubscribe rates. Reminders will move the primary up and the guardrail down, by design, and both effects are real. Define the decision rule before the test runs: what magnitudes make this a ship and what makes it a stop. Deliverable: the rule, including the exchange rate you are using between the two quantities.

Approach

Name the conflict precisely rather than calling it a balance: the reminder buys one week of an account returning and spends permission to contact that account, and permission is not renewable, so the two quantities are not comparable as percentage points.
Put both sides into one unit before arguing about thresholds. Value the primary gain as incremental core-action weeks over the horizon; value an opt-out as the forgone email-driven active weeks over that account's remaining expected lifetime.
Read opt-out as a stock, not a flow: accumulate it over the test, because a weekly opt-out rate that looks small is a cumulative curve that only ever rises within a fixed set of contactable accounts.
Run long enough for the novelty to decay and use the late number in the trade: compare week-1 lift with week-4 lift, state the decay you observed, and refuse to price the decision on a week-1 read.
Write the outcome as two numbers and a default action, including what happens when the result lands between them — hold and test a smaller volume increment rather than shipping on ambiguity.

Follow-up

Opt-out is flat but week-over-week repeat rate falls. What is the most likely mechanism, and does it change the decision?
You do not have a year of data to estimate remaining account lifetime. What do you substitute, and how do you keep the answer honest about that?
Does randomising on account rather than on user change either the readout or the size of the test?

Tell a novelty effect apart from a durable one

Medium · novelty effect · exposure cohorts · composition

A redesigned navigation shows a 6% lift in weekly core actions in calendar week one, 3% in week two and 1% in week three, on a continuously enrolling user-randomised experiment. Enrolment ran throughout, so later exposure cohorts are younger accounts. Using fct_experiment_exposure (unit_id, variant, first_exposed_at_utc), dim_user.account_created_at_utc and fct_event, determine whether this is novelty decay, a composition artefact, or a real effect that shrank, and state what evidence would settle it.

Approach

Separate calendar time from exposure time first. With continuous enrolment, calendar week two mixes units in their second week of exposure with units in their first, and the tenure mix changes daily, so a calendar trend is not evidence of decay.
Rebuild the readout as a triangle indexed on days since first_exposed_at_utc. For each exposure cohort compute the treatment effect at exposure-day k, then average across cohorts at fixed k using only cohorts that have reached k. Real decay shows as a falling curve in k; a composition artefact flattens out.
Use the one clean discriminator novelty offers: it requires a prior version to be novel against. Split on whether the unit existed before experiment start. Users who signed up afterwards never saw the old navigation, so a stable effect among them is not novelty, and an effect confined to pre-existing users is.
Check the primacy direction as well. An early negative effect that recovers is the mirror image and argues for shipping rather than against it, and it is invisible without the same exposure-indexed curve.
Say what would settle it. A long-run holdback, a few percent of traffic kept on control for eight weeks or more and read from exposure-week six onward. No three-week test can distinguish a decaying effect from one that has reached a lower plateau.

Worked solution (30 min)

Assign each exposed unit an exposure cohort from date(first_exposed_at_utc) and compute treated and control means per cohort per exposure-day k.
Average the per-cohort effects at each k only across cohorts that have observed day k, leaving later k blank rather than averaging over whoever has reached it.
Split the same triangle on pre-launch versus post-launch account_created_at_utc from dim_user.
Compare the curves: decay confined to the pre-launch split is novelty, decay in both is a real effect shrinking, and a flat exposure-time curve under a falling calendar curve is composition.
Recommend the holdback and state the earliest exposure-week at which a plateau claim becomes supportable.

Expected result: The decision rests on the exposure-indexed curve, not the calendar one. Novelty is indicated only when decay is present among units that existed before launch and absent among units created after it. Identical decay in both splits means a real effect shrinking; no decay in exposure time means the calendar trend was composition. A three-week test cannot separate decay from a plateau, and a long-run holdback can.

Verify it yourself

Within a cohort, denominators must not fall as k grows. If they do, the population is being conditioned on survival rather than held fixed at exposure.
Re-aggregating the exposure-indexed effects with the observed enrolment weights must reproduce the reported calendar-week effects, which proves the two views are the same data.
Verify with a query that no unit in the post-launch split has a pre-launch session, otherwise that split is not clean and the discriminator is worthless.

Follow-up

The holdback costs a few percent of traffic on the winning arm. How do you justify that, and when would you retire it?
Weekly core actions per user is a ratio whose numerator and denominator live at different grains. Which standard error are you computing, and why is the naive one wrong?
What would you conclude if the effect were 6%, 3%, 1% in exposure time as well, among post-launch signups only?

Size every candidate cause of a trial-to-paid decline

Hard · cohort-maturity · experiment-readout · mix-shift · contribution-sizing

Trial-to-paid conversion on weekly trial-start cohorts from fct_subscription_period reads 3.1 points below the trailing eight-week mean for the three most recent cohorts. Three things happened in that window: a pricing experiment reached 50% of new trials, a payment processor migration added settlement delay, and paid_search spend tripled. Using fct_subscription_period, fct_experiment_exposure and dim_user, rank the causes by their contribution in points of the headline, state the remainder, and give the decision you would take on Monday.

Approach

Kill the immature cohorts first, because everything downstream is computed on them. The metric is lagged by the trial length plus a 14-day conversion window plus a settlement allowance, and a processor migration lengthens exactly that last term; recompute each cohort at a fixed cohort age rather than as of today, and confirm the newest cohort's value is still climbing day over day.
Hold the experiment analysis to the exposed population. Join fct_experiment_exposure on unit_id with is_in_analysis_population = TRUE rather than reading an assignment log, then check the variant split for a sample-ratio mismatch before believing any effect at all. Contribution to the headline is the variant effect multiplied by the exposed share, which is not the same number as the variant effect.
Decompose the cohort mix by dim_user.first_touch_channel using the same weight-times-rate arithmetic as any other mix question, so the paid_search increase is sized as a weight change at a measured conversion rate rather than asserted from the spend figure.
Convert all three to points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual against the historical week-to-week standard deviation of the metric. If the residual is inside that band, say so and stop looking; if it is outside, name what you would investigate next rather than leaving it implied.
Land the decision. Only one of the three is actionable on Monday, so state whether the experiment has accrued enough exposed units to stop at the pre-declared horizon, and state separately what the settlement-lag correction does to the published series and its lag rule.

Follow-up

How do you choose the fixed cohort age, and what do you lose by choosing it too long?
If the pricing variant is genuinely 1.2 points worse, does that settle whether to stop it? What else is on the other side of that decision?
The trailing eight-week mean spans the processor migration. What is the right baseline instead?

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.

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.

Turn an ambiguous onboarding question into a measurable metric

Easy · scoping · metric definition · stakeholder

Two days before a planning review, a director asks whether onboarding is working. You have dim_user (account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal), fct_event (is_core_action, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc) and fct_session. No further meeting with the director is possible before you start work. Deliver three clarifying questions you would send in writing, the metric you will compute in the meantime with its numerator, denominator, window and exclusions, and one sentence naming the question you are deliberately not answering.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you convert a goal into a computable predicate without stalling for requirements or guessing in silence. Listing clarifying questions is the generic answer; shipping a defensible default alongside them is the strong one, because the review is in two days and it will happen with or without you.
Infer the decision behind the request. A question about whether onboarding works, arriving before a planning cycle, usually means whether to staff it next quarter. That points at a rate with visible headroom over several cohorts, not at a descriptive dashboard.
Write the three questions so that each one changes the SQL. Which population, all signups or only self-serve from dim_user.signup_surface. What counts as working, reaching a core action or completing the onboarding flow_id. Against what bar, last quarter's cohorts or a stated target.
Propose the default explicitly: seven-day activation on weekly signup cohorts. Numerator, users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Denominator, the signup cohort with is_internal = FALSE. Publish with an eight-day lag, and state that the two-distinct-days threshold is a frozen choice rather than a discovery.
Name the exclusion in the same breath as the number. The series shows whether users activate; it does not establish that onboarding caused the level, which needs a staged rollout or an experiment.

Follow-up

The director replies that they meant the onboarding flow specifically, not activation. What changes in the query and in the caveats?
Your cohort metric needs an eight-day lag and the review is in two days. What do you present, and how do you label it?
Two of your three questions come back unanswered. Which one do you refuse to proceed without?

Walk through an analysis you got wrong and what changed

Easy · postmortem · data quality · self-assessment

Describe an analysis of yours that turned out to be wrong after somebody had already acted on it. You have four minutes. The account must name the defect mechanically, the join, the filter, the window or the identity key, rather than describing it as a communication problem. It must also say who did what because of the wrong number, how the error surfaced, how long it stood, and what control you put in place so that class of error cannot reach a decision again. Do not pick an error nobody acted on.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you can be specific about your own failure without minimising it or performing contrition. The discriminator is whether the defect has a mechanism the listener could reproduce in their own warehouse.
Choose the case by blast radius rather than by comfort. An error nobody acted on tests nothing, and picking one signals that you are managing the interview instead of answering it.
Structure the account in six beats: the number, the decision it drove, the defect, the detection, the correction, the control. Keep the defect to one reproducible sentence, for example an inner join to fct_subscription_period that dropped accounts with no subscription row and so computed retention over payers only.
State the direction of the bias, not only its existence. A filter or join that removes rows usually moves a metric predictably, and knowing which way shows you diagnosed the mechanism rather than patched the symptom.
Be exact about detection and elapsed time. 'A colleague noticed' and 'the row-count assertion failed before publication' are different answers about the same organisation, and the second one is the one your control is supposed to produce next time.
End on the control, its cost, whether it has fired since, and one thing it does not cover.

Follow-up

What did the control cost, and has it fired since? If it never has, how do you know it works?
How long did the wrong number stand before anyone questioned it, and what does that say about the review path it went through?
What is the equivalent mistake you are most likely to make in this role, given the tables you would be working in?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?