Interview guides · InstaDeep

InstaDeep Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Take-home style practice for data scientist candidates: a messy dataset, a fixed time budget, and an analysis you write up and defend.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at InstaDeep, you will play a pivotal role in shaping how data drives decision-making processes across the company. This role is critical as it enables the development of innovative AI solutions that not only meet the current needs of clients but also anticipate future challenges. You will work closely with a diverse team, leveraging your analytical and technical skills to extract insights from complex datasets, thereby enhancing product offerings and improving user experiences.

A large share of questions open as "how would you measure X", where the real work is choosing the metric, fixing its denominator, and defining the population it applies to. Any computation comes last and is frequently not required at all.

Focus areas

Pick a randomisation unit that respects interference
Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
Decompose a metric move by segment and mix

Overview

The impact of your work will extend across various products and teams, focusing on machine learning models, data analysis, and algorithm development. In a rapidly evolving industry, your contributions will help maintain InstaDeep’s competitive edge by ensuring that data remains at the forefront of strategic initiatives. You can expect to engage with complex problems that require not only technical expertise but also creativity and lateral thinking—qualities that are highly valued at InstaDeep.

The InstaDeep interview process

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

Recruiter Call

Data Scientist covers at least four different jobs: experimentation, product analytics, causal work on observational data, and applied modelling that ships into a system. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which of them is being hired for, and doing that diagnosis openly reads as senior rather than fussy. Ask what the last few pieces of work on the team actually were, and roughly how a week splits between querying, modelling and stakeholder time. Then say which parts of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole range is the fastest way to be caught one round later.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can distinguish the flavours of the role and locate your own experience inside one of them honestly
Whether you name what you have not done instead of stretching to cover every line of the posting
Whether your hard constraints (notice period, location, work authorisation, level) surface now rather than at offer stage

How to prepare

Map the last two years of your time into rough percentages across query writing, experiment design, modelling and stakeholder work, so a question about scope has a real answer
Mark every responsibility in the posting as done, adjacent or new, and prepare one sentence for each adjacent item naming the closest thing you have actually built
Decide which logistics are non-negotiable before the call so you can state them in one sentence rather than negotiating live

Technical Interview

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

Team Interviews

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.

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.

Reading a pooled rate that moved because the mix moved, not because any behaviour changed

A pooled conversion rate is a weighted average, and a shift in the weights can move it in the opposite direction to every one of its parts. A paid campaign that brings low-converting traffic drops overall signup conversion even if desktop, mobile web and app conversion each rose that week, which is Simpson's paradox and it is the single most common cause of an inexplicable dashboard move. The discipline is to decompose before explaining: recompute the rate holding last period's segment weights fixed, and compare that counterfactual to the actual, so the mix effect and the rate effect are separated numerically rather than argued about. Segment on the dimensions that actually reweight, which in this domain are almost always device_type, referrer_channel, country and new versus returning.

Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised

Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.

SQL that silently fans out on a one-to-many join

State the grain of each table and the grain you want in the result before writing the join. Pre-aggregate the many side to the join key, or use EXISTS or a window function, and verify with a row count against COUNT(DISTINCT id) rather than trusting that the numbers look plausible.

Questions & practice

What is the bias-variance tradeoff?

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than reporting a point estimate alone.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.

Follow-up

What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?

How would you validate the performance of a predictive model?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

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

Audit a one-day event extract for structural defects

Easy · data quality · late arrival · pandas

You receive a one-day extract of fct_event as a DataFrame with event_id, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc, visitor_id, user_id, account_id, event_name, is_bot_flagged and surface. Write a function returning one row per data-quality rule with the rule name, the failing row count and the failing share of the extract. Cover at minimum: duplicate event_id, received_at_utc earlier than occurred_at_utc, occurred_at_utc later than the extract's maximum received_at_utc, account_id present while user_id is NULL, and rows whose occurred_at date differs from their received_at date. Do not drop rows; report only.

Approach

Compute the extract's own reference clock first: max(received_at_utc). Wall-clock now() is wrong here because the extract may be replayed days later, which would turn every row into a future-dated failure.
Express each rule as a boolean Series over the same index so the checks compose, then aggregate with .sum() and divide by len(df). Building a list of (name, mask) pairs keeps the rule set extensible and keeps one code path for counting.
For the duplicate rule, decide and state the convention: df.duplicated('event_id', keep=False).sum() counts every member of a duplicated group, df.duplicated('event_id').sum() counts only the surplus copies. Either is defensible; an unstated choice is not. The rest of this item assumes keep=False.
Treat received_at < occurred_at as clock skew, not corruption: occurred_at is client-supplied. Separate it from the date-mismatch rule, which is the one that actually breaks a daily metric keyed on occurred_at.
Know which rules imply which before you read the counts. A row whose occurred_at exceeds max(received_at_utc) has its own received_at no later than that maximum, so it is necessarily a clock-skew row as well: the future-dated mask is a subset of the skew mask, always. Neither is a subset of the date-mismatch mask, because skew of a few minutes inside one UTC date mismatches nothing.
Return a tidy DataFrame sorted by failing_share descending, and add a boolean column saying whether the rule should block publication, so the output is a decision rather than a list of numbers.

Worked solution (20 min)

Parse both timestamp columns with utc=True and assert the dtype, since a silently-object column makes every comparison string-wise and wrong.
Set ref = df['received_at_utc'].max() and build the five masks against it.
Assemble results as pd.DataFrame(rows) with columns rule, failing_rows, failing_share, blocks_publication.
Keep the masks addressable (a dict of name to Series) rather than only their sums, so the overlap between rules can be asserted rather than assumed.
Verify the function is pure: assert the input frame's shape is unchanged after the call.

Expected result: A DataFrame with one row per rule, failing_share equal to failing_rows divided by len(df) for every row, and the input frame returned unmodified. The rules overlap rather than partition the extract, and one containment is structural: every future-dated row is also a clock-skew row. The counts therefore must not be summed or presented as a total.

Verify it yourself

Plant violations deliberately and assert an exact expected vector rather than assuming one hit per rule. On a 10-row frame carrying two rows that share an event_id, one same-date skew row, one row whose occurred_at sits an hour past max(received_at_utc), one row with account_id set and user_id NULL, and one row whose occurred_at falls on the previous UTC date: duplicate_event_id is 2 under the keep=False convention, clock_skew is 2 (the planted skew row plus the future-dated row, which cannot avoid tripping it), future_dated is 1, orphan_account is 1, date_mismatch is 1.
Assert the containment directly rather than by counting: (future_dated_mask & ~clock_skew_mask).sum() is 0. A non-zero value means the reference clock was not max(received_at_utc).
Feed a clean frame and confirm all counts are 0 and no rule errors on empty masks.
Confirm len(input) is identical before and after, since the deliverable is a report and not a cleaned frame.

Follow-up

The date-mismatch count is 2.1 percent on this extract. What late-arrival rule would you write for a daily metric, and how many days would you hold the number open?
Duplicate event_id values appear only on the 'core_action_completed' event. What upstream cause would you check before deduplicating?
Which of these rules should fire an alert at the pipeline, and which should only appear in a weekly review?

Write a function to calculate the Fibonacci sequence.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

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 a problem involving data manipulation using Python or R.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

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

Weekly visit-to-signup conversion split by acquisition channel

Easy · funnel · conversion · aggregation

From fct_session (session_id, visitor_id, started_at_utc, referrer_channel, is_bot_flagged, consent_state) and fct_event (visitor_id, occurred_at_utc, event_name), compute visit-to-signup conversion for one ISO week, split by channel. session_id is the unique key of fct_session. Denominator: distinct visitor_id with a session starting in the week, is_bot_flagged = FALSE and consent_state <> 'denied'. Numerator: those visitors with a 'signup_completed' event in the same week. Label each visitor with the referrer_channel of their first session in the window. Return channel, visitors, signups and rate, plus one all-channel total row.

Approach

Build a visitor spine that is one row per visitor: filter sessions to the week, drop is_bot_flagged and consent_state = 'denied', then take the first session per visitor with ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY visitor_id ORDER BY started_at_utc, session_id) = 1 to carry the channel label. Collapsing to one row here is what makes the channel buckets mutually exclusive and the totals additive.
session_id is the unique key, so that ordering is total and the label is reproducible. If the table carried no unique key you would have to write an explicit tie rule instead, because two sessions on different channels at the identical timestamp would otherwise label the visitor differently between runs.
Attach the outcome as a semi-join (EXISTS on a signup_completed event for that visitor inside the same week) rather than a join to the event table, so a visitor who fires the event twice does not count twice and inflate the numerator past the denominator.
Aggregate with COUNT() as visitors and COUNT() FILTER (WHERE signed_up) as signups, and compute the rate as signups::numeric / NULLIF(visitors, 0) so an empty channel returns NULL rather than a division error.
Produce the total with GROUP BY GROUPING SETS ((channel), ()), which re-sums numerator and denominator for the total row. Averaging the channel rates gives a different and wrong number whenever channel volumes differ, which they always do.
Verify the spine before trusting the output: COUNT(*) must equal COUNT(DISTINCT visitor_id), and the per-channel visitor counts must sum to the total row.

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the filtered session CTE and check its row count against an unfiltered count, so you know how much volume the bot and consent filters removed.
Add the ROW_NUMBER first-session pick and assert one row per visitor.
Add the EXISTS outcome flag and aggregate with FILTER.
Add GROUPING SETS for the total and format the rate to four decimal places.
Spot-check one channel by hand: pull its visitor list, count signups directly, compare.

Expected result: One row per referrer_channel plus a total row, with visitors, signups and a decimal rate. Channels with zero signups appear with rate 0, not missing. The total rate lies strictly between the minimum and maximum channel rate unless one channel holds all the volume.

Verify it yourself

Per-channel visitor counts sum exactly to the total row's visitor count.
COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT visitor_id) on the spine CTE.
Replacing the EXISTS with a plain inner join changes the signup count only if duplicate signup_completed events exist; if it does change, say by how much.
Every rate is between 0 and 1.
Re-running the first-session pick with session_id removed from the ORDER BY returns the same labels; if it does not, visitors hold same-timestamp sessions on different channels and the tie rule is doing real work.

Follow-up

The denominator is distinct visitors. If a browser release shortens cookie lifetime, what happens to this rate, and how would you tell that apart from a genuine drop?
A visitor's first session is direct and their signup session is paid search. Your label says direct. When is that the wrong answer for the decision being made?
How do you roll four weeks into a month, and why is averaging the four weekly rates wrong?

How would you approach predicting customer churn for a subscription service?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
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?

Can you demonstrate how to optimize a given piece of code?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

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?

How do you prioritize tasks when working on multiple projects?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

Describe a complex problem you solved and the methodology you used.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.

Follow-up

What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?

How would you design a data pipeline for real-time analytics?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.

Follow-up

How would you know your answer was wrong?
What assumption would you test first?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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)

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

Separate a definition edit from a behaviour change

Easy · definition-change · metric-versioning · cohorts

Seven-day activation rate is documented as core actions on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside the first seven days after account_created_at_utc, and every cohort published through last week was computed on that definition. The dashboard now reads 38% for the signup cohort that started Monday, against 31% for the cohort before it. Two things landed in that week: an onboarding change, and a commit to the metric's SQL that you have not read yet and that came with no documentation update. You have dim_user, fct_event and the metric's version history. Deliver two numbers: how many of the 7 points are behaviour and how many are the definition. Then say which published cohorts are no longer comparable.

Approach

Diff the metric SQL across the commit boundary and enumerate every changed predicate individually: the distinct-day threshold, the is_internal exclusion, the is_core_action source, the window bounds, and the identity key. A single commit routinely changes more than one, and each has its own sign.
Dual-run both definitions over the same 26 cohort weeks. The definition effect is the level shift between the two series computed on identical data, which isolates it from anything that happened in the world.
Read the behaviour effect only from the old-definition series, comparing the new cohort to its own trailing cohorts. The new-definition series cannot answer the behaviour question because it has no pre-period.
Explain the mechanism of the changed predicate rather than only its size. Lowering a distinct-day threshold from 2 to 1 admits every user who acted once in a single session, which is a large and low-intent population, so a several-point jump is the expected magnitude and not a surprise.
State the restatement plan: pick one definition, backfill the full history on it, and annotate the break date. A series carrying two definitions is not a time series.

Follow-up

The onboarding team wants the 1-day threshold kept because it is easier to move. What is your argument, and what would change your mind?
How would you make a definition change visible to every consumer of this metric without relying on people reading a changelog?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.

Day 1 — Design one test end to end on paper

Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.

Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.

Day 2 — Power arithmetic until it is automatic

Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.

Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.

Day 3 — Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem

Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.

Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.

Day 4 — Validity threats you can actually test for

Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.

Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.

Day 5 — When randomization is not available

Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.

Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.

Day 6 — The readout query

Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.

Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.

Day 7 — Present it to someone who will not read the appendix

Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.

Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.

Ownership when the result is inconvenient

Sometimes the honest read is that the initiative did not work, and the person who commissioned the analysis was hoping otherwise. Interviewers want to know whether you softened it. Prepare the case where you delivered an unwelcome result, how you presented the uncertainty without hiding behind it, and what the team did next.

Describe a time when you had to communicate complex technical information to a non-technical audience.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

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?

Choose between three teams' requests with one analyst-week

Medium · prioritisation · stakeholder · judgement

You have one analyst-week. Three requests land the same morning. A growth team wants a paid-channel readout before a Friday spend decision. A billing team wants gross monthly revenue churn rebuilt, because the current figure recognises cancellation at canceled_at_utc rather than period_end_utc and is therefore wrong. A product team wants a dashboard for a feature launching in six weeks. All three sponsors are peers of your manager. Deliver your ranking, the explicit rule that produced it, and the message you send to the two teams you defer.

Approach

Recognise what is being probed: whether you prioritise on decision value and reversibility or on who asked most recently and most loudly. The generic answer sorts by importance; the strong one states a rule, applies it, and accepts the ranking it produces even where that is uncomfortable.
Score each request on three statable things: the decision it unblocks and the date that decision is made, the cost of being wrong in the meantime, and whether the work is one-off or compounding. A wrong published churn figure compounds, because it is quoted downstream and enters forecasts; the channel readout has a fixed date that cannot move; the dashboard has six weeks of slack.
Notice the tension between value and urgency rather than resolving it by feel. The churn defect is the most valuable item and the least urgent one, which is exactly the shape of work that never gets done.
Break the churn item in two. A one-hour severity check, sizing the gap between the two recognition points in MRR, is cheap enough to do before ranking anything and may promote the item outright. Do that first, then rank.
Make the deferrals concrete. Each deferred team gets a date, a reason expressed as another team's decision deadline rather than as relative importance, and the smallest thing you can hand them immediately.

Follow-up

The dashboard team escalates to your manager. What do you say in that conversation?
Your severity check shows churn is overstated by 15%. Does the ranking change, and does anybody need to be told today regardless of the ranking?
A fourth request arrives Wednesday with a Thursday deadline. What comes off the list, and who do you tell first?