IntelliGenesis Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at IntelliGenesis, you play a vital role in transforming complex, large-scale data holdings into actionable intelligence and strategic value. You will operate at the intersection of advanced mathematics, statistics, computer science, and domain-specific applications to build robust analytical models, solve intricate mission challenges, and guide high-stakes technical decisions. Your work directly influences how the organization processes, explores, and derives meaning from disparate data streams, helping technical and non-technical stakeholders alike navigate complex operational environments.

In modelling rounds the live question is usually why this model class for this problem, and how you would know six weeks after launch that it is still working. Deriving gradients by hand is rarely what is being probed.

Focus areas

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

Overview

This role requires a rare combination of deep technical execution and strategic communication. You will devise strategies for data extraction, implement advanced machine learning algorithms, and translate real-world mission needs into rigorous technical requirements. Whether you are constructing complex database queries, evaluating modeling results under real-world data limitations, or presenting principled conclusions to leadership, your contributions drive the core data capabilities of IntelliGenesis.

Expect an intellectually stimulating and rigorous work environment where your expertise in shaping raw, unstructured data into clear insights will be continuously tested. You will collaborate closely with multidisciplinary teams of engineers, analysts, and program leadership on critical initiatives. Success in this role demands intellectual curiosity, technical versatility, and the ability to maintain clarity and precision when dealing with ambiguous problem spaces.

The IntelliGenesis interview process

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

Application Review

Most candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
• Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
• The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal

How to prepare

• Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
• Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
• Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered

Recruiter Screening

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 Screenings

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

• Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
• Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
• Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

• Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
• Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
• If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows

Technical Rounds

Before anything else, this round is a reading test. You are given a small schema and a question phrased in business language, and most of the difficulty sits in the gap between them. Who counts as an active user, does a refunded order still count as an order, is that date column an event time or a load time. Weak answers start typing immediately and compute something precise about the wrong population. Strong ones pin the definition in one sentence, name the column that encodes it, then write the query. On a timed assessment with nobody to tell, write the definition in a comment anyway.

What to demonstrate

• Whether an ambiguous term becomes a specific column and filter before any computation happens
• Whether you read the schema for keys and cardinality rather than only for column names
• Whether the result answers the question at the grain it was asked at, per user or per session or per day

How to prepare

• Take three metrics you already use and write down the exact filter and exact grain behind each, then practise stating one of them in a single sentence out loud
• On a schema you have never seen, spend the first minute writing what one row of each table means and which key it is unique on, then predict which joins can duplicate rows
• Rehearse a version where the definition changes halfway through, and edit the query you have instead of starting over

Stakeholder Interviews

Because the format is not fixed, prepare the reasoning rather than the ritual. Nearly every version of this round draws on the same underlying material: a design you can defend, a metric you can define exactly, an analysis whose assumptions you can state out loud. Only the wrapper changes, whether that is a take-home, a live case, a deep dive on past work, or a rough estimate on a whiteboard. Answers rehearsed to fit one shape stall the moment the shape differs. Practise naming the assumption behind a number, then saying how much the conclusion moves if that assumption is wrong.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your justification for a method survives the question 'why not the simpler thing', including when the simpler thing would have worked
• Precision under pressure: what exactly counts as an active user, a conversion or a success, over what window, with what exclusions
• Whether you carry an argument through to a recommendation instead of stopping at a list of tradeoffs

How to prepare

• For each project you plan to mention, write the metric definition in one sentence: numerator, denominator, time window, exclusions. Say it out loud once, because vagueness shows up in speech before it shows up on paper.
• Rehearse the same project at three lengths: two minutes, ten minutes, and a deep dive on one technical decision. Cutting live is harder than it sounds.
• For your headline result, write down what would have had to be true for it to be wrong, and how you ruled that out.

Final Offer Discussion

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

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.

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.

Generalising beyond the population the sample actually supports

State the frame the sample was drawn from and where it diverges from the population you want to talk about: time window, platform, geography, opt-in. If a group is excluded from the frame, either weight to known margins or narrow the claim rather than quietly extending it.

Explaining an aggregate move without decomposing the mix shift

Split the change in the aggregate into within-segment movement and movement in segment weights before you explain it. Every segment's rate can fall while the overall rate rises, purely because volume shifted toward segments that already had higher rates.

Questions & practice

Explain the implications of Type I and Type II errors in the context of high-stakes operational decision-making.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

1. Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
2. Quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than reporting a point estimate alone.
3. 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?

Design an A/B testing framework for evaluating a new algorithmic recommendation engine under constraints of limited sample size.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. df = df.sort_values(['visitor_id','occurred_at_utc','event_id']).reset_index(drop=True).
2. new_visitor = df.visitor_id.ne(df.visitor_id.shift()); gap = df.occurred_at_utc.diff(); new_day = df.occurred_at_utc.dt.date.ne(df.occurred_at_utc.dt.date.shift()).
3. is_start = new_visitor | (gap > Timedelta(minutes=30)) | new_day; df['session_key'] = is_start.cumsum().
4. g = df.groupby('session_key'); out = g.agg(visitor_id=('visitor_id','first'), user_id=('user_id','last'), started_at_utc=('occurred_at_utc','min'), ended_at_utc=('occurred_at_utc','max'), event_count=('event_id','size')).
5. out['session_date'] = out.started_at_utc.dt.date; out['duration_seconds'] = (out.ended_at_utc - out.started_at_utc).dt.total_seconds(); assign session_id from the sorted index.

Expected result: One row per session where session_count equals is_start.sum(), event_count sums exactly to len(input), every session's started_at and ended_at share one UTC date, and duration_seconds is at least 0 and strictly less than 86400.

Verify it yourself

• out['event_count'].sum() equals len(df); a mismatch means rows were lost to a join or a dropna.
• started_at_utc.dt.date equals ended_at_utc.dt.date on every row.
• For a planted visitor with events at 12:00:00 and 12:30:00 exactly, one session is emitted; move the second to 12:30:01 and two are emitted.
• For a planted visitor with events at 23:59:50 and 00:00:10, two sessions are emitted on consecutive dates despite a 20-second gap.

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?

Write a query to rank users based on their activity frequency within specific time windows using dense rank and partition clauses.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
2. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
3. 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 would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

Write a SQL query using SQL window functions to calculate running totals and identify anomalous spikes in daily record processing.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
2. State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
3. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.

Follow-up

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

How do you select the appropriate statistical test when evaluating variability and sampling error in non-normal datasets?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
2. Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
3. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

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

Read an experiment from first exposure, not assignment

Hard · experiments · window-functions · srm

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (35 min)

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

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

Verify it yourself

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

Follow-up

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

How would you design a core product metric to evaluate the success of an automated data ingestion pipeline?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

• 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?

A key user engagement metric suddenly dropped by fifteen percent week-over-week. Walk through your diagnostic framework to isolate the root cause.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Explain how you would handle network effects or interference between treatment and control groups during a live experiment.

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

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

Follow-up

• What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
• What would you do if you could not randomise at all?

What are some common experimentation pitfalls you must watch out for when running concurrent tests on overlapping user cohorts?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
2. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
3. Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.

Follow-up

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

How would you determine whether a new feature for search relevance provides genuine value versus introducing unnecessary complexity?

Medium

Approach

1. Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
2. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
3. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

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

Define success for a rebuilt first-run onboarding checklist

Easy · activation · metric tree · cohorts

A rebuilt first-run checklist ships to all new signups next month. You have dim_user (user_id, account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal) and fct_event (user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, event_name, surface). Propose a primary metric with an explicit numerator, denominator, window and publication lag, plus two guardrails and one diagnostic you would refuse to treat as success. The team wants a number it can read weekly, and the constraint is that everything must be computable from those two tables alone. Deliver the metric tree from the north star down to the metric you chose.

Approach

1. Fix the grain and the cohort key first: the checklist is seen by users, so count on user_id with account_created_at_utc as the cohort key, and say out loud that the north star is account-grained so the tree crosses grains here deliberately rather than by accident.
2. Take seven-day activation as the primary — core action on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, +7 days) — because the two-distinct-days predicate cannot be satisfied by the single checklist-completion click the feature itself produces.
3. Demote checklist completion rate to a diagnostic and give the reason: it is an output of the feature, so it is near-perfectly correlated with having shipped the feature and cannot fall when the feature is bad.
4. Pick guardrails by the failure each one catches, not by what is easy to query: week-4 signup-cohort retention catches an activation gain that does not persist, and p50 minutes to first core action catches a checklist that adds steps to a path users already completed.
5. State the operational rules explicitly: is_internal = FALSE, an 8-day publication lag, and signup_surface values 'invite' and 'sso_provisioned' split out because those users arrive through an administrator rather than a self-serve signup and may not be shown the checklist at all.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. Write the primary in full: numerator = cohort users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least 2 distinct UTC dates in [account_created_at_utc, +7 days); denominator = all dim_user rows in the cohort week with is_internal = FALSE.
2. Draw the tree downward: weekly active accounts completing a core action, then seven-day activation rate multiplied by weekly signups, then checklist step completion and time-to-first-core-action labelled as diagnostics.
3. Attach the timing rules: 8-day lag, and a cohort with fewer than seven full elapsed days published blank rather than partial.
4. Attach each guardrail to its named failure mode in one line each, so the guardrail list reads as a list of specific risks rather than a list of metrics.
5. Write the exclusion rule and the surface split, and state what you would do if 'invite' users turn out to be a third of the cohort.

Expected result: A primary metric stated as numerator, denominator, window, lag and exclusions; two guardrails each tied to a named failure mode; and checklist completion explicitly demoted to a diagnostic with the reason given.

Verify it yourself

• The denominator includes cohort users who never returned. If it is built from users with any event, the metric is conditioned on survival and will read several points too high.
• Recomputing a cohort's activation rate three days after first publication must return the same number. If it moves, the right-hand window bound or the late-arrival rule is missing.
• The per-surface cohort counts must sum to the unsplit cohort count, so confirm signup_surface IN ('invite','sso_provisioned') is broken out rather than dropped. Note the limit while you are there: neither dim_user nor fct_event carries a pre-signup identifier, so whether those users were ever shown the checklist is not answerable from these two tables — the surface split is the only handling available, and the metric definition has to say that rather than imply exposure was verified.

Follow-up

• Activation rises three points but week-4 retention is flat. What do you tell the team, and what would you need to distinguish a real gain from pulled-forward activity?
• The checklist ships on web only. What changes in the denominator, and what breaks if you leave every surface in?
• Signup mix shifted toward 'invite' the same week. How would you show whether the activation move was mix or behaviour?

Decide whether a one-day core-action drop is real

Easy · seasonality · day-of-week · late-arriving-data

A daily dashboard counts distinct fct_event.user_id with is_core_action = TRUE, filtered on occurred_at_utc, and is read at 09:00 UTC. This morning it shows yesterday down 22% against the day before. fct_event is partitioned on received_at_utc. You have fct_event, fct_session and dim_user with thirteen months of history. Deliver a one-paragraph verdict, escalate or do not escalate, with the evidence that settles it, before anyone proposes a product hypothesis.

Approach

1. Identify which two weekdays the comparison actually spans, then pull the same weekday-pair transition for the last 52 weeks and place the observed 22% inside that distribution. A day-over-day comparison in a product with a weekday pattern is a comparison of two different populations, so the reference class is the same transition historically, not the prior day.
2. Measure partition completeness rather than assuming it. For each of the last 30 days compute the share of that day's occurred_at_utc rows that had landed by 09:00 UTC the following morning, split by surface; mobile clients buffer events offline, so the freshest partition is systematically short and the shortfall is not uniform across surfaces.
3. Recompute the same series keyed on received_at_utc. If the drop survives on both keys it is not a lateness artefact; if it exists only on occurred_at_utc it is the partition filling in.
4. Check the two exclusion flags before segmenting anything: a change in is_bot_flagged coverage or a batch of is_internal accounts entering or leaving moves a distinct-user count with no user behaviour behind it.
5. Only if the movement survives all of the above, begin the segment decomposition. Say explicitly in the verdict which of these four checks the movement passed, so the next reader does not repeat them.

Follow-up

• What publication lag would you set for this dashboard, and how would you derive the number rather than pick it?
• If you switch the metric to received_at_utc, what does that break for anyone comparing to historical figures?
• How would you detect the same problem automatically, so a human does not have to notice it each morning?

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.

Tell me about a time you had to communicate complex technical information or statistical concepts to a non-technical stakeholder.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
2. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
3. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.

Follow-up

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?

Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched

Hard · self-assessment · attribution · communication

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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