Interview guides · Humana Italia Spa

Humana Italia Spa Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist interview prep for Humana Italia Spa: original practice on experiment design, SQL and metric reasoning, with worked solutions.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Humana Italia Spa, you are a critical architect of data-driven decision-making. Your work directly influences the efficiency and quality of healthcare services, moving beyond theoretical modeling to solve tangible problems within the healthcare ecosystem. You will be responsible for transforming complex datasets into actionable insights that guide stakeholders and improve patient outcomes.

Seniority shifts the scope more than the words in the title do. Earlier-career loops mostly check that you execute a well-posed analysis correctly; senior loops check that you can decide which question is worth answering and defend what you chose not to do.

Focus areas

Separate censoring from events in time-to-event models
Risk-adjust outcomes before comparing providers or panels
Build member-month denominators from overlapping coverage spans

Overview

This role requires a balance of technical rigor and business acumen. You will engage with diverse teams—ranging from software engineering to clinical operations—to deploy machine learning models and analytical solutions. Because the healthcare domain is multifaceted, you will find yourself working on projects that require not only deep mathematical expertise but also a strong understanding of how data impacts the end-user experience.

Be prepared to articulate how your technical work directly impacts the business. At Humana Italia Spa, the ability to translate complex model outputs into clear, actionable advice for non-technical leadership is a core competency.

The Humana Italia Spa interview process

Humana Italia Spa candidates report 5 rounds · ≈ 4-6 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

A screening call is a matching exercise run by someone who will not evaluate your statistics. They are checking that the work described on your resume is work you personally did, and that its scope matches the level the role is written for. Logistics get settled in the same half hour so nobody spends an interviewer's afternoon on a mismatch. The answer that fails is the one narrated in the plural. If every sentence is 'we built' and 'the team decided', there is nothing specific to write down about you. Name the piece that was yours, the decision you made inside it, and what changed after.

What to demonstrate

Whether the ownership implied by your resume survives one round of follow-up about who actually did which part
Whether your described scope (data size, stakeholders, what shipped) matches the seniority the role is written at
Whether timeline, location and compensation expectations make the rest of the loop worth scheduling

How to prepare

Rewrite your top three resume bullets in the first person singular, each with the decision you made and what moved afterwards, then say them out loud once so the 'we' does not return under pressure
Attach one number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where impact was never measured, say that plainly rather than inventing a figure
Settle your compensation range before the call and give it as a range with a reason behind it, such as current total comp or a competing timeline, instead of deflecting the question twice

Technical Assessment

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

Project Discussions

Rounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.

What to demonstrate

Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options

How to prepare

Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.

Interviews with Teams

An extra round usually exists because something is still open after the standard loop: a skill the earlier interviews did not sample, a level decision, or two interviewers who disagreed. It is rarely a rerun of what you already did well. Ask the recruiter who you are meeting, what function they sit in, and how long the session runs. That is an ordinary scheduling question, and the answer changes what you should prepare. What separates a strong candidate here is treating the round as a fresh evaluation with its own bar, rather than assuming earlier performance carries you through or sinks you.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can answer well on ground the earlier rounds did not cover, without leaning on what you already said to someone else
Consistency of the facts in your stories: the same sample size, timeframe, team size and scope of your own role as in earlier conversations
How you handle an unfamiliar format live, including whether you ask what kind of answer is wanted before producing one

How to prepare

Ask the recruiter for the interviewer's function, the length, and whether to expect a coding surface, a discussion, or a presentation. Preparing for a 30 minute conversation with a partner team is not the same work as preparing for a 60 minute technical block.
Write out what each earlier round actually covered, then list the two or three areas nobody probed. That gap is the most likely subject of the extra round.
Re-read the numbers in the project stories you have already told, so a second telling does not quietly contradict the first.

Final Leadership Interviews

A day of back-to-back interviews samples your floor, not your ceiling. Four hours in, the habits that carry a good answer are the first to go: restating the question before solving it, asking what the data would have to look like, checking a number before quoting it. What the day decides is whether the tired version of you is still someone to leave alone with an ambiguous problem. The round that sinks a candidate is usually not the hardest one. It is the one immediately after the round that went badly.

What to demonstrate

Whether the late rounds get the same clarifying questions as the first one, or whether you start answering immediately to save effort
Whether a weak answer stays in the room it happened in, instead of following you into the next conversation as apology or distraction
Whether the quality of your questions holds up, since fatigue removes curiosity about the problem before it removes knowledge of the method

How to prepare

Rehearse the length, not just the content: book four mock interviews of different types in one afternoon with short gaps, because the one you need to observe is the fourth
Put the two or three questions you ask at the start of any problem on a card in front of you, so that under fatigue it is a habit you run rather than a decision you make
Decide in advance what the gap between rooms is for: water, one line of notes on anything you promised to follow up, and an explicit close on the round that just ended so it does not travel
Prepare a different closing question for each interviewer, so the end of a long day does not produce the same one four times

Where candidates lose points

Treating clinical measurements as missing at random

A lab result, a vital sign, or a screening exists because someone ordered it, and ordering tracks suspicion of disease, visit frequency, and site workflow. Imputing the mean or dropping incomplete rows biases the population estimate and can flip the sign of an association, because the untested are systematically healthier or systematically disengaged. The presence indicator is often more predictive than the value, which is a warning sign rather than a feature win: a model that learns test ordering will not transfer to a site with different protocols.

Immortal time in adherence, treatment, and enrolment definitions

Classifying members as adherent, treated, or programme-enrolled requires them to survive and stay covered long enough to accumulate the defining events. That guaranteed event-free interval is assigned to the exposed group, so the exposure looks protective for reasons that have nothing to do with the treatment. Adherence studies are the classic case: measuring 12-month proportion of days covered and then comparing mortality builds survival into the exposure definition. Use time-varying exposure or a landmark analysis with the classification window excluded from follow-up.

Treating a non-significant result as proof of no effect

Say whether the confidence interval excludes the effect sizes you would have cared about. If it does not, the honest reading is that the test was underpowered, so report the minimum detectable effect the design could have found and what sample size would resolve it.

Stopping an experiment the moment it crosses significance

Fix the sample size or duration before launch, or use a method built for continuous monitoring such as a sequential test, always-valid confidence intervals, or group-sequential boundaries. Repeatedly checking a fixed-horizon p-value against 0.05 pushes the real false-positive rate well above 5 percent.

Questions & practice

How do you validate your model’s performance to ensure it is robust for real-world application?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning in the context of our current data challenges.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

Bootstrap a confidence interval for a ratio-of-sums PMPM

Medium · bootstrap · ratio estimator · resampling unit

You have one row per member for a fully run-out incurred year: member_id, member_months, allowed_amount. Report allowed PMPM, defined as sum(allowed_amount) divided by sum(member_months), with a 95 percent confidence interval from a bootstrap you write yourself. No library resampler. Resample members with replacement, recompute the ratio on each of 2,000 replicates, take a percentile interval, and seed the generator so the result reproduces. In two sentences, state why resampling claim lines instead of members would be wrong.

Approach

Name the estimator precisely: PMPM is a ratio of sums, not the mean of per-member ratios. The two differ whenever exposure correlates with spend, and it does, because members who churn out mid-year are systematically different from members covered all twelve months.
Resample the unit of independence, which is the member, and recompute numerator and denominator together on the same draw. Recomputing only the numerator against a fixed denominator understates variance and is a common slip.
Pull member_months and allowed_amount into numpy arrays once, then draw indices with rng.integers(0, n, size=n) per replicate. Index draws over arrays run one to two orders of magnitude faster than DataFrame.sample, which is the difference between 2,000 replicates and 200.
Take the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the replicate ratios. Expect an interval that is asymmetric around the point estimate, because healthcare spend is right skewed. That asymmetry is the method working, not a bug to centre away.
Answer the line-resampling question concretely: the many lines of one high-cost member are not independent draws, so line resampling shrinks the interval toward zero width, and member_months has no line-level analogue, so the denominator becomes undefined.

Worked solution (25 min)

Compute the point estimate as allowed.sum() / months.sum() on the full sample.
Extract both columns to float numpy arrays and create rng = np.random.default_rng(seed).
Loop 2,000 times: idx = rng.integers(0, n, n); ratio = allowed[idx].sum() / months[idx].sum(); store it.
Take np.percentile(replicates, [2.5, 97.5]) and report the point estimate with that interval and the seed.

Expected result: A point estimate plus a 95 percent percentile interval that is wider on the upper side than the lower. With tens of thousands of members and a typical commercial cost distribution the relative half-width lands on the order of a few percent; an interval a small fraction of a percent wide is the signature of having resampled rows rather than members.

Verify it yourself

Re-running with the same seed reproduces both bounds exactly.
Raising replicates from 2,000 to 8,000 moves each bound by less than its third significant figure.
The mean of the replicate ratios sits close to the point estimate; a large gap indicates a bug in the resampler rather than skew.
Replicate denominators cluster tightly around the observed total member-months, which confirms the draw size is n rather than a fixed constant.

Follow-up

Half a percent of members have a transplant or a long NICU stay. Does a percentile interval still have nominal coverage, and what would you do about the tail?
The question changes to comparing PMPM across provider panels. What becomes the resampling unit and why?
How would you use the same replicates to test whether this year's PMPM differs from last year's, given the same members appear in both?

Write a Python function to process and clean a provided dataset.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.

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?

Solve the following SQL query focusing on ranking and window functions.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

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 would you optimize a SQL query that is running slowly on a large database?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.

Follow-up

What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Count thirty-day unplanned readmissions without counting transfers

Medium · self-join · event streams · exclusions

encounter holds encounter_id, patient_id, facility_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts, admission_type, discharge_disposition, is_planned_admission and index_encounter_id. For inpatient stays discharged between 2025-01-01 and 2025-11-30, return the 30-day unplanned readmission rate overall and by facility_id. Exclude an index stay when is_planned_admission is TRUE or discharge_disposition is transfer_acute, expired, hospice or ama. A qualifying readmission is any unplanned inpatient admission for the same patient with admit_ts after the index discharge_ts and within 30 days of it. One stay can be both a readmission and the next index stay.

Approach

Decide between LEAD and EXISTS explicitly and say why. LEAD over the patient's admission stream gives the literal next stay, so an intervening planned admission hides a later unplanned one. The measure asks whether any unplanned admission fell in the window, which is an EXISTS or a self-join with a range predicate.
Exclude transfers at the index end before anything else. An acute-to-acute transfer closes one encounter and opens another at a different facility_id within hours, so without the transfer_acute exclusion the facilities that move the sickest patients out look the worst.
Apply the index exclusions as a set, including stays with NULL discharge_ts, which are still open and have no measurable window.
Stop the denominator early enough that every index stay had a full 30 days of observation plus encounter lag. That is why the window ends 2025-11-30 rather than at year end.
Compute the rate at stay level, not patient level, then compare the raw facility rates against an observed-over-expected framing before anyone publishes a ranking.

Worked solution (30 min)

CTE ip: inpatient encounters with a non-null discharge_ts.
CTE index_stays: ip rows with discharge_ts in the window, is_planned_admission FALSE, and discharge_disposition not in the four excluded values.
Flag each index stay with EXISTS against ip for the same patient_id where is_planned_admission is FALSE, encounter_id differs, admit_ts > index.discharge_ts and admit_ts <= index.discharge_ts + 30 days.
Aggregate numerator and denominator overall and grouped by facility_id.
Re-run with the transfer exclusion removed and record how much the rate moves.

Expected result: Eligible index stays, stays with a qualifying readmission, and the quotient, overall and per facility_id. Removing the transfer exclusion returns a higher rate, and the gap between the two is a number you should be able to quote.

Verify it yourself

Numerator never exceeds denominator, and an index stay with two qualifying readmissions still contributes exactly one.
No index stay in the output has discharge_disposition transfer_acute, expired, hospice or ama.
A 0-day window gives a rate of exactly 0, and a 365-day window gives a rate no lower than the 30-day one.
Facility rates weighted by facility denominators reconcile to the overall rate.

Follow-up

A patient has three stays ten days apart. How many index stays and how many readmissions, and why does the answer depend on the stated rule?
Which comparison would you publish across facilities, raw rate or observed over expected, and what does risk adjustment still fail to fix?
index_encounter_id already exists on the table. Would you trust it, and how would you audit it against your own logic?

Given a dataset, how would you perform an exploratory data analysis (EDA) to identify key trends?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

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

Specify a readmission rate two parties will settle on

Easy · measure specification · exclusions · observed over expected · runout

A payer and a hospital group are writing a shared-savings term that settles on 30-day unplanned readmissions. You have encounter (encounter_id, patient_id, member_id, facility_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts, admission_type, discharge_disposition, is_planned_admission, index_encounter_id, drg_code, principal_diagnosis_code) and member_enrollment coverage spans. Produce the measure specification both sides sign: numerator, denominator, exclusion list, observation window, and the paid-through date at which a discharge month becomes reportable. State whether settlement is on the raw rate or an observed-over-expected ratio, and defend the choice.

Approach

Fix the unit of analysis first: the denominator is eligible index stays, not members and not patients. Say out loud that one member can contribute several index stays in a period, and that a readmission is itself eligible to become an index stay, because leaving that unstated is where two implementations diverge.
Write the exclusion list as a waterfall with a count at each step rather than a sentence: planned admissions (is_planned_admission TRUE), discharge_disposition in expired, hospice and ama, and stays whose discharge_disposition is transfer_acute, which are the first leg of one episode rather than an index stay that ended.
Add the exposure condition the encounter table cannot express on its own: an index stay only counts if the member has coverage in member_enrollment for the full 30 days after discharge_ts, with the allowable gap written in days. Without it, a disenrollment reads as a clean outcome.
Define the numerator join precisely: the earliest later inpatient encounter with is_planned_admission FALSE and admit_ts within 30 days of the index discharge_ts, at any facility_id, capped at one readmission per index stay so a single unstable member cannot dominate a facility's rate.
Set the maturity rule. Inpatient facility claims adjudicate slowest of any service type, so name a paid-through lag, put the paid-through date on the report header, and state that a discharge month is restated until it matures.
Settle on observed-over-expected and say why: raw rates confound case mix with care, and the expected model is fitted on age, sex and comorbidities drawn from the 12 months of claims before admit_ts, excluding diagnoses first coded during the index stay so complications of that stay do not inflate the facility's own expectation.

Worked solution (25 min)

Write the eligible-index waterfall as a numbered list before touching any logic, with a placeholder count beside each line so the reviewer can see how much of the raw discharge volume each exclusion removes.
Write the numerator rule in one sentence including the tie-break for two admissions on the same day, and the one-readmission-per-index cap.
State the coverage requirement as a concrete filter: covered on every day from discharge_ts to discharge_ts + 30, allowable gap 0 days, evaluated against member_enrollment spans rather than a single active flag.
Name the paid-through lag and write the restatement policy: a discharge month is provisional until it matures and is republished at every refresh until then.
Write two sentences on why settlement is on O/E, including what risk adjustment does not fix, namely unrecorded severity and differences in social support at discharge.

Expected result: A one-page specification containing: an exclusion waterfall with a count at every step; a numerator counting at most one unplanned acute readmission per index stay within 30 days of discharge_ts at any facility; a 30-day continuous-coverage requirement with the allowable gap stated in days; a named paid-through lag with a restatement policy; and settlement on the observed-over-expected ratio with a confidence interval, on the stated ground that raw rates are not comparable across facilities with different case mix.

Verify it yourself

Recompute the raw rate with and without the transfer_acute exclusion. A facility that receives transfers should move materially; if nothing moves, the transfer legs are not being detected at all.
Compare the numerator count to the count of distinct encounters serving as a readmission. They should be equal; a larger numerator means one readmission is being credited to two index stays.
Re-run the same discharge month at two paid-through dates 60 days apart. A stable rate means the lag is long enough; a rate that climbs means it is not.
Confirm every excluded stay lands in exactly one exclusion bucket so the waterfall sums back to the raw discharge count.

Follow-up

A member transfers from one acute facility to another on day two of the stay. One episode or two, and which facility owns the outcome?
The hospital starts admitting borderline patients to observation status instead of inpatient. What happens to your numerator, your denominator and the rate, and which companion metric would show it?
Why would you refuse to report this rate for a facility with 40 eligible index stays in a quarter?

First-pass denial rate doubled in one received week

Medium · pipeline failure · segment cuts · denominator definition

First-pass denial rate jumped from 6.1 to 11.8 percent in a single received_date week and stayed at the new level. Nothing in the adjudication rules changed that week. You have medical_claim_line: claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code, claim_status, denial_reason_code, member_id, received_date, adjudicated_at, billing_provider_npi. The metric counts lines whose first adjudication returns 'denied', over lines received in the window at claim_version = 1. Find the cause, say whether denial behaviour actually changed, and deliver the corrected series plus the query change that fixes it.

Approach

Cut the excess by denial_reason_code before anything else. A behaviour change spreads across codes; an upstream failure concentrates in one. If a single eligibility-related code carries nearly all of the 5.7 point excess, the claims are fine and the eligibility data was not.
Join the denied lines to member_enrollment and compare the span's created_at to the claim's received_date. Lines denied for members whose coverage span loaded after the claim arrived are a load-ordering failure, not a coding failure.
Check resolution downstream: take those claim_ids and look for a later version with frequency_code 7 that adjudicates to 'paid'. A high resubmit-and-pay share confirms the denial was transient and recoverable.
Verify the denominator is not the mover. Count lines at claim_version = 1 by received_date and check the weekday mix, because submission batching makes received_date strongly day-of-week patterned and a short or holiday week shifts the denominator without changing behaviour.
Confirm runout: the metric should be held until 60 days of adjudication have passed, so check that the comparison weeks are equally mature rather than comparing a settled week to a fresh one.
Restate the series with the affected reason code broken out as its own line, and change the query to carry denial_reason_code into the reported breakdown rather than only the headline rate.

Follow-up

The affected lines all get paid on resubmission. Is the first-pass denial rate then wrong, or right and uninteresting?
How would you monitor for this class of failure without waiting for someone to notice a chart?
What changes if the excess is spread evenly across denial_reason_code instead of concentrated?

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.

Explaining a method to someone who will not follow the maths

Half of this section is about translation. Be ready to describe how you explained a result to someone who did not want the method, only the implication, and what you did when the simplified version started being repeated in a way that overstated it. Correcting your own simplification is a strong beat.

Walk me through your most challenging data science project.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

Describe a situation where your initial hypothesis was proven wrong by the data.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Sequence three urgent requests with one analyst-week available

Medium · prioritisation · tradeoffs · stakeholder communication

Three requests land on Monday and you have one week. An actuarial team needs incurred-claims completion factors restated before a filing deadline on Thursday. A clinical programme owner wants a deterioration model refreshed because its calibration has drifted in one region. A trial operations team wants site enrolment forecasts for a portfolio review in two weeks. Each requester believes theirs is blocking. Deliverable: your sequence with the reasoning, the message you send to whoever is deprioritised, and the smaller artefact you hand each of the two you cannot fully serve.

Approach

The probe is whether you prioritise on consequence and reversibility rather than on who asked loudest or most recently.
Classify each request by what happens if it slips. A regulatory or contractual deadline is irreversible on its date, a drifting model is causing harm every day it keeps running, and a portfolio review can absorb a provisional number. That ordering is defensible to all three requesters because it does not depend on your preferences.
Take the deadline-bound work first, but scope it to the minimum defensible output, because completion factors feeding a filing carry a different error tolerance than a slide.
Do not let the drifting model simply wait. Quantify the harm cheaply by comparing calibration in the affected region against the rest, and if it is materially miscalibrated propose flagging or suppressing its output for that region within the hour rather than at the end of a refresh.
Give each deprioritised requester something real: a provisional forecast with its uncertainty and a refresh date, or a diagnostic that tells them whether their problem is urgent. Say no explicitly with a date rather than going quiet, because silence is what produces escalation.

Follow-up

The programme owner escalates to your manager. What do you want your manager to be able to say?
Midweek the actuarial work needs two more full days than you estimated. What gives?
How does your answer change if the drifting model drives a clinical outreach list rather than a report?