Interview guides · Intermountain Health

Intermountain Health Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

SQL practice for Intermountain Health data scientist candidates: window functions, funnel and retention queries, joins that quietly drop rows.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Intermountain Health, you operate at the critical intersection of advanced analytics and patient care. Your work is not merely about building models; it is about leveraging massive, complex healthcare datasets to drive clinical decision-making, optimize operational efficiencies, and ultimately improve health outcomes for the communities Intermountain Health serves. You will be tasked with translating ambiguous clinical questions into rigorous quantitative frameworks that have tangible impacts on patient lives.

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

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

Overview

The role demands a high degree of technical proficiency combined with the ability to communicate complex findings to non-technical stakeholders, including clinicians and hospital administrators. You will be working within an environment where data integrity and ethical considerations are paramount. Whether you are developing predictive models for patient risk or analyzing large-scale healthcare trends, your contributions are central to the mission of Intermountain Health to provide high-value, high-quality care.

Candidates should emphasize their ability to handle real-world, "messy" data, as clinical datasets often require significant cleaning and domain-specific context before modeling can begin.

The Intermountain Health interview process

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

Initial Recruiter Screen

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 Deep-Dive

Much of what gets scored here happens out loud while you type. Nobody can see your reasoning inside a half-written query, so five silent minutes read as being stuck even when they are not. State the plan in plain language first: which tables, what grain you are aggregating to, and the one filter that defines the population. Then write it. The narration doubles as insurance, because a wrong plan gets caught early and cheaply while a wrong query gets caught at the end with no time left to redo it. A timed statistics section, where one exists, is a separate test with its own clock.

What to demonstrate

Whether the query you write matches the plan you just described
What you do with a hint, meaning whether the correction gets absorbed or the first approach gets defended
Whether you can debug your own wrong output by reading the result set and naming which part of the query produced the anomaly

How to prepare

Solve three problems while screen-sharing into a recording, then watch it back and mark every stretch longer than thirty seconds where you said nothing
Practise compressing the plan into one sentence before typing, then check afterwards whether the finished query actually matched it
Time yourself on statistics questions that carry a business reading, such as what a confidence interval does and does not claim, rather than re-reading notes without a clock

Conceptual Discussions

An added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact

How to prepare

Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.

Practical Exercises

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.

Technical Evaluations

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

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.

Ignoring clustering by provider, facility, or site

Patients within a provider panel, and subjects within a trial site, are correlated on both case mix and practice pattern. Standard errors computed as if observations were independent are too narrow by roughly the design effect, 1 + (m - 1) * ICC, where m is the average cluster size. With 50 patients per provider and an intracluster correlation of only 0.02, variance is understated by about a factor of two, which manufactures significant provider differences out of noise. Cluster-robust errors or a random intercept per provider, and cluster-level randomisation when you design the test, are the corrections.

Reaching for a model before the target metric exists

Before naming an algorithm, write down the label, the prediction time, and the action that changes when the score crosses a threshold. If you cannot say what decision the output drives, any modelling choice is guesswork dressed up as method.

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.

Questions & practice

Can you explain the trade-offs between different classification algorithms in a clinical setting?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you approach documentation for your code and model development process?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
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

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

Build a claims lag triangle and complete recent months

Medium · chain ladder · runout · pivot

medical_claim_line has claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code, service_start_date, paid_date, allowed_amount, claim_status. Using 24 fully mature incurred months, build a development triangle of allowed dollars by incurred month and payment lag in whole months, derive cumulative completion factors by chain ladder, then estimate ultimate allowed for the three most recent incurred months at a stated paid-through date. Deduplicate to surviving claim versions before building the triangle. Return incurred_month, paid_to_date, completion_factor, estimated_ultimate.

Approach

Deduplicate to surviving claim versions and keep paid lines first. A triangle built on all versions develops on adjustment churn rather than on payment timing, and replacements arrive late, so the distortion concentrates in exactly the tail you are trying to estimate.
Compute lag as a whole-month difference between incurred month and paid month, not as day difference divided by 30. Ragged month lengths otherwise shuffle identical claims between lag buckets depending on which month they fall in.
Pivot to incurred_month by lag, cumulate along lag, then form age-to-age factors as the ratio of the column L+1 total to the column L total, summed over incurred months mature enough to have both. Volume weighting is the chain ladder; a simple mean of per-month ratios lets one low-volume month dominate the factor.
Chain the age-to-age factors from each lag to ultimate and invert: completion factor at lag L is the reciprocal of the product of factors from L onward. Apply as estimated_ultimate = paid_to_date / completion_factor.
State the assumption you have just made, which is that the development pattern is stable. It is not, after a claims-system migration, a network change or a processing backlog, and the most recent month's factor is the least reliable because it rests on the fewest observations while carrying the largest adjustment.

Worked solution (35 min)

Deduplicate to surviving versions, drop voids, keep claim_status 'paid', and derive incurred_month from service_start_date and paid_month from paid_date.
lag = (paid_month.year - incurred_month.year) x 12 + (paid_month.month - incurred_month.month); drop negative lags and investigate them separately.
Pivot to a triangle of summed allowed_amount, cumulate along the lag axis, and mask cells past the paid-through date so no cell contains a future payment.
Compute volume-weighted age-to-age factors per lag over the mature rows, then chain them into cumulative completion factors.
Apply the factor for each recent month's current maturity to its paid_to_date and return the four columns.

Expected result: Three rows. Completion is well below 1 at short lag and approaches 1 in the tail; for a mixed medical book a one-month-old incurred month commonly sits far from complete, while a twelve-month-old one is close. Exact values are book-specific, so the reviewable property is monotonicity and the holdout test below, not the numbers themselves.

Verify it yourself

Cumulative completion factors are non-decreasing in lag and converge toward 1 at the tail.
Hold out one fully mature incurred month, apply the factors at each of its intermediate maturities, and confirm each estimate lands within a few percent of its known total.
estimated_ultimate is greater than or equal to paid_to_date for every row.
A pharmacy-only triangle completes far faster than an inpatient-facility-only triangle, which confirms the lag computation is reading real payment timing.

Follow-up

A processing backlog means the last two months developed slower than history. What does your estimate do, and how would you detect that before reporting?
Pharmacy, professional and inpatient facility develop on different clocks. How do you split the triangle, and what breaks if the service mix shifts?
What happens to a PMPM series if someone reports an unadjusted recent month, and in which direction does the error point?

Deduplicate claim versions before totalling allowed amounts

Easy · dedup · window functions · claim versions

medical_claim_line holds one row per service line per claim version: claim_line_id, claim_id, claim_version, frequency_code (1 original, 7 replacement, 8 void), member_id, service_start_date, procedure_code, allowed_amount, claim_status and adjudicated_at. Adjusted claims appear more than once, so summing every row double counts them. Return total allowed_amount by procedure_code for service_start_date in Q1 2025, counting only lines with claim_status 'paid' on the surviving version of each claim, which is the highest claim_version per claim_id, and dropping the claim entirely when that surviving version carries frequency_code 8. Resolve survivorship with a window function, not a self-join.

Approach

Resolve survivorship at claim_id, not claim_line_id. Carry MAX(claim_version) OVER (PARTITION BY claim_id) alongside every line and keep lines where claim_version equals it, because a replacement version can contain a different number of lines than the original.
Read the frequency_code of the surviving version only. A frequency_code 8 removes the claim outright; it does not revert payment to the prior version, so a void must delete the claim rather than promote version n-1.
Apply claim_status and the date filter after survivorship is resolved. Filtering paid lines first can strip the surviving version and silently elect a superseded one.
Group by procedure_code and sum allowed_amount, then state the paid-through date on the output because Q1 amounts keep moving until adjudication runout completes.
Sanity check the shrinkage: report how many claim_ids and how many dollars the dedup removed, so the reviewer can see the step did something.

Worked solution (20 min)

Build a CTE that adds surviving_version = MAX(claim_version) OVER (PARTITION BY claim_id) and surviving_freq = the frequency_code of the row at that version, to every line.
Filter to claim_version = surviving_version so all lines of the surviving version survive together.
Drop claims whose surviving_freq is 8, then apply claim_status = 'paid' and service_start_date between 2025-01-01 and 2025-03-31.
Group by procedure_code, sum allowed_amount, and emit the count of distinct claim_ids contributing.
Run the naive SUM over all rows beside it and report the difference as the double count that was removed.

Expected result: One row per procedure_code with summed allowed_amount over surviving, non-voided, paid Q1 2025 lines. A claim with an original and one replacement contributes only the replacement's lines; a claim whose surviving version is a void contributes nothing.

Verify it yourself

Deduped total is strictly below the naive paid-and-Q1 SUM taken across all versions whenever at least one claim carries paid Q1 lines on more than one version. If the two totals match on such a claim, the dedup did nothing.
For one claim_id known to have three versions, the line count it contributes equals the number of its paid Q1 2025 lines at its highest claim_version, not 1.
Let B be the set of claim_ids whose surviving version has at least one paid line with a Q1 2025 service_start_date. COUNT(DISTINCT claim_id) in the output equals the size of B minus the number of claims in B whose surviving version carries frequency_code 8. Comparing instead against COUNT(DISTINCT claim_id) over the whole raw table is not a void test: that gap also absorbs every claim dropped by claim_status or by service date.

Follow-up

Two rows share a claim_id and claim_version but differ on adjudicated_at. What do you do, and what does that imply about the extract?
How does the query change if the request is allowed_amount by paid_date rather than service_start_date, and which basis does a finance reconciliation want?
A void arrives for a claim already published in a closed month. How do you restate without rewriting history in the warehouse?

Find inpatient encounters with no resulted lab during the stay

Medium · anti-join · null semantics · event matching

encounter holds encounter_id, patient_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts and facility_id. lab_result holds result_id, order_id, patient_id, encounter_id (NULL for outpatient standing orders), loinc_code, specimen_collected_ts, resulted_ts and result_status. Return every inpatient encounter discharged in 2025 with no final or corrected lab_result linked to it. A colleague wrote WHERE encounter_id NOT IN (SELECT encounter_id FROM lab_result) and got zero rows back. Say why, write the correct query, then say what changes when labs must instead be matched on patient_id with the specimen collected between admit_ts and discharge_ts.

Approach

Name the mechanism rather than the symptom. x NOT IN (subquery) expands to x <> y1 AND x <> y2 AND ..., and a single NULL y makes that chain UNKNOWN, never TRUE. Since lab_result.encounter_id is nullable by design for standing orders, this query can only ever return zero rows.
Rewrite as NOT EXISTS, or LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter. Both treat a NULL key as no match rather than as unknown. Adding IS NOT NULL inside the NOT IN subquery also works, but NOT EXISTS is the habit that survives someone making another column nullable later.
Put the result_status predicate inside the correlated subquery or the ON clause, not in an outer WHERE. Outside, it turns the anti-join back into an inner join and an encounter whose only labs were cancelled disappears instead of qualifying.
For the timestamp variant, match on patient_id with specimen_collected_ts inside the stay rather than resulted_ts. A specimen drawn an hour before discharge can result the next day, and anchoring on resulted_ts would wrongly call that stay lab-free.
Restrict to encounter_type 'inpatient' and discharge_ts in 2025, and report open encounters with a NULL discharge_ts as a separate count instead of letting the filter swallow them.

Follow-up

Write the LEFT JOIN form and say exactly where the result_status predicate must sit for the two forms to agree.
How would you separate encounters whose only labs were cancelled from encounters with no lab rows at all?
Some encounters carry member_id NULL because the person index did not match. What does that do to a payer-side version of this measure?

How do you approach feature selection when dealing with large, sparse medical datasets?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
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?

Redesign an adherence metric an outreach team cannot quietly inflate

Medium · gaming · adherence · denominator design · threshold bunching

An outreach team is paid on the share of members reaching proportion of days covered of 0.80 or higher in a therapeutic class, computed from pharmacy_claim (member_id, therapeutic_class_code, fill_date, days_supply, refill_number, reversal_flag, reversed_fill_id). The denominator is members with at least two fills in the class and at least 91 days of follow-up, over a 12-month window. Name three ways the team raises this number without any member taking more medication, then redesign the metric and its guardrails so each lever is closed or visible.

Approach

Attack the denominator first, because it is the cheapest lever. A member who fills once and abandons never enters the denominator at all, so the worst outcome in the class is invisible, and any effort spent on first-fill abandonment lowers the reported share by moving those members in. The incentive runs backwards.
Attack the window arithmetic second. With the denominator running from first fill to window end, a member whose first fill lands late in the year has a short denominator that is trivially easy to cover, so steering new starts to the last quarter raises the metric mechanically. Report by index quarter or fix the window and require the index fill in the first quarter.
Attack the threshold third. Days of supply dispensed late in the window count only up to the window end, but a fill placed 60 days before close, on a member whose last on-hand day has already passed, adds up to 60 covered days, about 0.16 of a 365-day denominator. That alone moves a member from 0.77 to 0.93 with no change in what anyone swallows.
Close the dispensing-side hole: a fill that is billed and reversed is not exposure. Exclude both rows of a reversed pair via reversal_flag and reversed_fill_id, and collapse overlapping fills by pushing each interval start to the later of fill_date and the prior interval's end, so early refills shift coverage forward rather than stacking.
Redesign the scorecard as a pair rather than a single number: the threshold share stays as the headline, and mean PDC plus the share at 0.90 or higher travel with it, because a distribution cannot be bunched at a threshold without showing it.
Add the guardrails that make each lever visible: first-fill abandonment rate (fills with refill_number 0 never followed by a second fill, plus reversed first fills), the share of covered days originating from fills in the final 60 days of the window, and the distribution of PDC in the bands just below and just above 0.80.

Worked solution (30 min)

Write the exposure-interval construction explicitly: drop reversed pairs, sort fills per member and class by fill_date, set each interval start to the greater of fill_date and the prior interval end, and truncate the final interval at the window end.
Write the denominator in two variants, the incumbent at-least-two-fills rule and an index-fill rule requiring the first fill in the first quarter with at least 273 days of follow-up, and state what each includes that the other does not.
Enumerate the three gaming levers with the arithmetic that makes each one work, including the 60-day end-of-window fill computed against a 365-day denominator.
Specify the headline metric plus the two companions (mean PDC, share at 0.90 or higher) and the three guardrails, each with numerator, denominator and window.
Write one sentence stating that dispensing is a proxy for taking and that the proxy overstates adherence in the direction of anyone who fills and does not take.

Expected result: A redesign in which: reversed fills are excluded and overlaps shift forward rather than stack; the denominator is anchored on an index fill in a fixed window so late starters cannot buy a short denominator; the threshold share is reported with mean PDC and the share at 0.90 or higher; and three guardrails ship with it, namely first-fill abandonment rate, the share of covered days contributed by fills in the last 60 days of the window, and the PDC distribution in the bands immediately below and above 0.80.

Verify it yourself

Hand-compute PDC for a member with fills on day 1, day 25 and day 200 at 30 days supply each in a 365-day window. Overlapping the day-25 fill forward gives 90 covered days and PDC of about 0.25; stacking incorrectly gives 90 days too but misplaces them, so check the interval endpoints, not just the total.
Compare the member count under both denominator rules. The index-fill rule should be strictly smaller or equal on early starters and should pull in first-fill abandoners the incumbent rule excluded.
Plot the PDC histogram around 0.80. A smooth distribution is consistent with real behaviour; a spike in the first band above the threshold is not.
Sum covered days sourced from fills in the final 60 days of the window across members who cross the threshold. A large share concentrated there is the end-of-window blitz showing up directly.

Follow-up

The share at 0.80 or higher rose four points and mean PDC rose 0.4 points. What is your reading, and what do you look at next?
Would you pay on 0.80 at all, or on the continuous measure? Say what each choice costs you.
Possession is not ingestion. Name a measurable consequence in another table that would corroborate a real adherence improvement, and state its own weakness.

Glycemic control share jumped when a feed connected

Medium · informative missingness · unit mismatch · metric specification

The share of members with a controlled glycemic result moved from 0.62 to 0.81 the month a second result feed was connected. lab_result carries result_id, order_id, patient_id, encounter_id, loinc_code, analyte_name, value_numeric, units, reference_low, reference_high, abnormal_flag, result_status and supersedes_result_id. The metric is members whose latest result in the year is below the control threshold, divided by members with any result in the year. Decide whether control actually improved, and specify the metric so results from both feeds can be pooled.

Approach

Split numerator and denominator. The denominator is members with any result, so a feed that tests more people changes the metric without changing anyone's health. Count denominator members before and after and see how much of the 19 point move is denominator growth.
Recompute on a fixed cohort: members who had a qualifying result in both the before and after periods. If the share is flat on the fixed cohort, the movement is who got tested, not what their results were.
Deduplicate to the latest non-cancelled row per (order_id, loinc_code), respecting supersedes_result_id, because a corrected result arrives as a new row and counting both gives one person two values.
Audit units and loinc_code mix by feed. Two unit conventions coexist for this analyte, percent and mmol/mol, related by mmol/mol equal to 10.929 times (percent minus 2.15), so 7.0 percent is 53 mmol/mol. Comparing mmol/mol values to a percent threshold would classify them all as uncontrolled and depress the share, so a rise cannot be explained by that mismatch, which rules it out rather than in.
State plainly that the tested population is not the covered population. Testing is ordered when someone suspects a problem or when a site runs standing orders, so the mean among tested members is not the population mean and cannot be made into one by imputation.
Respecify: numerator and denominator both restricted to members with a stated continuous-enrolment requirement, one deduplication rule, one unit after conversion, one threshold, and a separately reported testing rate so the denominator's movement is visible.

Follow-up

Someone proposes imputing the mean result for untested members. What happens to the estimate and why?
A model you are building gains AUC from a feature that marks whether the test exists. Why is that a warning rather than a win?
How would you report this metric so a clinical committee can see improvement separately from coverage of testing?

Suggested practice checklist

Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.

Deliverable: A five-item sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area

Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted improvement in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed next to the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

Getting an analysis acted on

Work that nobody used is a common and unflattering pattern in data careers, and interviewers probe for it. Have a story about an analysis that changed a decision, and be specific about how you got it in front of the person who could act. Also have one about work that went nowhere, with your reading of why.

Describe a time you had a conflict with a manager; how did you resolve it?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Describe a time you had to explain a complex model to a stakeholder without a data background.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Tell us about a project where you had to pivot due to changing requirements or data limitations.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
What would you do differently if you ran that project again?