Interview guides · John Deere

John Deere Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

A two-week prep plan for John Deere data scientist candidates: write your answer before reading the solution, revisit misses three days later.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at John Deere, you do not just write code or build isolated models; you directly influence the technology that feeds, fuels, and builds the world. John Deere is undergoing a massive transformation into a smart industrial company, merging heavy machinery with cutting-edge digital technology. In this role, you will work at the intersection of physical equipment, advanced IoT sensors, cloud computing, and machine learning to build intelligent systems that optimize agricultural and construction operations globally.

Coding rounds for this role are usually data-manipulation shaped rather than data-structure shaped: group-bys, joins, time windows, ranking within a partition. Confirm the format before spending a week on graph traversal.

Focus areas

Analyse at the account grain, cluster errors
Strip CI, retry and synthetic traffic first
Separate contracted seats from actively used seats

Overview

Your work will directly impact precision agriculture initiatives, such as computer-vision-powered weed detection, automated steering systems, and predictive maintenance for massive fleets of connected machines. The models you build will analyze petabytes of spatial, agronomy, and machine-telemetry data. This scale and real-world complexity make data science at John Deere uniquely challenging and rewarding, requiring you to bridge the gap between digital algorithms and physical execution in the field.

To succeed, you must possess a solid foundation in statistical theory, machine learning, and software engineering, combined with a deep curiosity for solving physical-world problems. Whether you are optimizing supply chains, predicting component failures before they happen, or building deep learning models for autonomous tractors, your contributions will drive efficiency, sustainability, and profitability for farmers and builders worldwide.

The John Deere interview process

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

Preliminary Recruiter Screen

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

Online Technical Assessment

This round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.

What to demonstrate

Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it

How to prepare

Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither

Technical Panel Interviews

Where a loop includes a partner from outside the data team, that conversation usually carries the same weight as the technical ones and gets the least preparation. The person opposite you will not follow a derivation and does not need to. They are working out whether having you involved would make their decisions better or slower. The failure mode is not being too technical. It is answering a question about a decision with a description of your method, leaving the translation to them. What they carry into the debrief is the sentence you handed them, not the analysis underneath it.

What to demonstrate

Whether a statistical result arrives as something the partner could act on, with the one caveat that would change their decision kept and the rest left out
Whether you can state what you need from their side, in their terms: instrumentation that does not exist yet, a definition they own, or a holdout they have to agree to
Whether uncertainty is given as a range someone can plan against, rather than as hedging that invites them to ignore the result
Whether you ask what decision is actually on the table before explaining anything

How to prepare

Take a result you know well and write the version for someone who stops reading after one sentence, then the three-minute version, and check the short one is not the long one with the qualifications stripped out
For a past project, list everything you asked a non-technical partner for and how you phrased it, then rewrite each ask so it names what goes unmeasured without it
Practise saying where a result does not apply, out loud, in one sentence that a partner could repeat accurately to someone else

Behavioral Evaluations

Rounds of this kind usually include one question about work that did not go well, and it is the part that carries the most information. Anyone can narrate a shipped win. What the interviewer learns from a project that stalled is how you behave without a result to hide behind: whether you noticed the problem yourself, how long it took, and who you told. Answers that route the failure onto a data pipeline or a reorganisation close the topic without answering it, and the follow-up comes back to your own part.

What to demonstrate

Whether you found the error yourself or someone else found it, and how long it sat before anyone knew
What you changed afterwards, stated as a check you now run rather than a lesson you now believe
Whether the mistake you choose has real cost attached, such as a quarter of misdirected roadmap or a metric that was reported upward, instead of one that flatters you

How to prepare

Choose a failure you caught yourself and be ready to say what tipped you off. A story where someone else caught it is still usable, but you will be asked why you missed it.
Write down the check you added afterwards and where it lives now, so the correction is a concrete artefact rather than a resolution.
Rehearse saying the cost out loud. Candidates shrink the number by instinct once the interviewer is in the room.

Team-Matching Discussion

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.

Where candidates lose points

Computing monthly churn against the entire customer base when contracts are annual

An annual contract has no opportunity to churn except at its renewal date, so an account that is eleven months from renewal is in the denominator while being incapable of appearing in the numerator. The resulting rate is smaller than the real one by roughly the ratio of the base to the renewal-eligible base, and it oscillates with the seasonality of when deals were originally signed rather than with anything about the customers. The corresponding trap on the other side is counting a churn on the date the record was updated rather than on term_end_date, which shifts losses into whichever month the operations team did its paperwork.

Reporting a mean over accounts when account revenue is heavy-tailed

When a small number of accounts hold most of the revenue, the sample mean is dominated by whichever of them happens to be in the sample, and the sample variance keeps growing as more data arrives instead of stabilising. In that regime the usual central-limit-based confidence interval understates uncertainty, and a single renewal or a single large account's batch job can flip the sign of a measured effect. The fixes are to pre-register a winsorisation or capping rule before looking at the outcome, to report account counts crossing a threshold alongside the revenue figure, or to define the estimand on a bounded transform. Choosing the cap after seeing the result is a separate and worse problem, because the cap then encodes the answer.

Accepting a metric definition without asking about the denominator

Pin down the denominator, the eligibility filter and the time window before computing anything: conversion rate per session, per user, per eligible user and per new user are four different numbers with different behaviour. Restate the definition in one sentence and get agreement before you analyse.

Comparing periods without accounting for seasonality or day-of-week

Compare whole weeks against whole weeks and check whether the same swing appeared in prior cycles or prior years before attributing it to anything you changed. Weekday and weekend populations often differ enough that a Tuesday-to-Saturday comparison is meaningless.

Questions & practice

Describe Bayesian statistics and explain how it differs from a frequentist approach.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than reporting a point estimate alone.
Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.

Follow-up

Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?
What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?

Explain the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) and why it is fundamental to hypothesis testing.

Medium · statistics and probability

Approach

Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.

Follow-up

What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?

What evaluation metrics would you use for a highly imbalanced classification dataset, and why is accuracy insufficient in this scenario?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
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.

Follow-up

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

Walk me through how you would perform feature engineering on a time-series dataset of engine temperature readings.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
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.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?

Implement seven-day activation rate from its written definition

Easy · metrics · pandas · activation

Given dim_account (account_id, created_at, is_internal, is_current) and fct_api_request (account_id, request_at, http_status, api_key_id, traffic_class), implement activation_rate(accounts, requests, week_start). Definition: the numerator is accounts whose first request with http_status < 400, api_key_id not null and traffic_class != 'synthetic_monitor' occurs no later than 168 hours after created_at; the denominator is non-internal accounts created during the ISO week starting week_start. All timestamps are tz-aware UTC. Return the rate and both counts, and refuse to report a week until every account in it has had its full 168 hours.

Approach

Reduce dim_account to one row per account_id before joining anything. It is a type 2 dimension, so several versions of the same account exist; joining the versioned table to requests multiplies the denominator by the number of plan changes an account happened to make.
Build the denominator first and freeze it: is_internal == False and week_start <= created_at < week_start + 7 days. Everything after this is a filter on the numerator only, because an account that never sent a request must still sit in the bottom of the fraction.
Filter requests to qualifying rows and only then take groupby('account_id').request_at.min(). The first qualifying request is not the same object as the global first request filtered afterwards, and the two answers differ for every account whose first call was a 4xx.
Left-join the first qualifying timestamp onto the cohort and test (first_ok - created_at) <= Timedelta(hours=168). NaT propagates to False in that comparison, which is the behaviour you want, but assert it rather than assume it.
Guard reportability explicitly: if week_start + 7 days + 168 hours exceeds the maximum request_at in the data, the week is censored and will read as a drop, so return None or raise rather than emit a number.

Worked solution (20 min)

cohort = accounts.loc[~accounts.is_internal & accounts.created_at.between(week_start, week_start + pd.Timedelta(days=7), inclusive='left'), ['account_id','created_at']].drop_duplicates('account_id')
ok = requests[(requests.http_status < 400) & requests.api_key_id.notna() & (requests.traffic_class != 'synthetic_monitor')]
first_ok = ok.groupby('account_id', as_index=False).request_at.min(); m = cohort.merge(first_ok, on='account_id', how='left'); assert len(m) == len(cohort)
activated = (m.request_at - m.created_at) <= pd.Timedelta(hours=168); return {'rate': float(activated.mean()), 'numerator': int(activated.sum()), 'denominator': len(m)}

Expected result: A dict whose denominator is the count of distinct non-internal accounts created in that ISO week, numerator <= denominator, and rate = numerator / denominator; accounts with no qualifying request sit in the denominator with NaT and evaluate to False.

Verify it yourself

len(m) == cohort.account_id.nunique(); the merge must not add rows.
Dropping the synthetic_monitor filter can only raise the numerator, never lower it.
Widening the window from 168h to 336h is monotone: the numerator must not decrease.
An account whose only qualifying request falls at exactly created_at + 168h counts as activated, since the comparison is inclusive.

Follow-up

Median time-to-first-call is more informative. What breaks if you take the median over activated accounts only, and what estimator fixes it?
How would you decide whether 168 hours is the right window rather than 72 or 336?
An account signs up, does nothing for 20 days, then integrates heavily. Where does it land in this metric, and is that what you want?

Write a SQL query using window functions to find the running total of machine operating hours grouped by region.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?

Explain the difference between a inner join, left join, and full outer join. How do you optimize a query that joins multiple large tables?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.

Follow-up

How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?

What is database normalization, and when would you choose to denormalize a database for analytical performance?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Find paid seats that never called the API

Easy · anti-join · null semantics · seat utilisation

dim_user_membership carries user_id, account_id, seat_type, is_service_account, deactivated_at and last_seen_at. fct_api_request carries user_id, which is null whenever the caller is a service account or an unattended key, plus account_id, request_at and http_status. For a single account, list every licensed_paid seat with is_service_account = false and deactivated_at null that issued no request at all in the trailing 90 days, returning user_id and last_seen_at. A first draft writes NOT IN against a subquery over fct_api_request.user_id. State exactly what that draft returns and why, then write the correct query.

Approach

Read the column comment first: user_id is nullable on the fact, so the subquery almost certainly contains at least one NULL for any account that runs a service account or an unattended key.
Work the three-valued logic out loud. x NOT IN (a, NULL) expands to NOT (x = a OR x = NULL); the second disjunct is UNKNOWN, so for any x not equal to a the whole predicate is UNKNOWN and the row is filtered out. The draft returns zero rows, which reads as full seat utilisation.
Rewrite as NOT EXISTS with the 90-day and status predicates inside the correlated subquery. Putting them in the outer WHERE instead turns the anti-join into a different question and silently changes the answer.
Correlate on both user_id and account_id. A membership is (user_id, account_id) and one person can hold memberships in several accounts, so correlating on user_id alone marks a seat as active because that human was busy somewhere else.
Filter the seat side to seat_type = 'licensed_paid', is_service_account = false and deactivated_at IS NULL, and say what the resulting count means next to contracted_seats on the current subscription row.

Worked solution (15 min)

Confirm the hazard with one query: SELECT count(*) FROM fct_api_request WHERE user_id IS NULL AND account_id = :account_id. Any non-zero result proves the draft returns nothing.
Write the seat side: SELECT user_id, last_seen_at FROM dim_user_membership WHERE account_id = :account_id AND seat_type = 'licensed_paid' AND NOT is_service_account AND deactivated_at IS NULL.
Attach AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM fct_api_request r WHERE r.user_id = m.user_id AND r.account_id = m.account_id AND r.request_at >= now() - interval '90 days').
Compare the row count against the same query written as a LEFT JOIN with a WHERE r.user_id IS NULL; the two must agree exactly.
Divide the active seat count by contracted_seats from the account's current fct_subscription_period row and state the utilisation figure.

Expected result: A list of user_id and last_seen_at for licensed, non-service, active memberships on that account with no request in 90 days. The NOT IN draft returns zero rows whenever the account has any service-account or unattended-key traffic, and returns the right answer only by accident on accounts that have none.

Verify it yourself

The NOT EXISTS result and the LEFT JOIN ... IS NULL result return identical user_id sets.
Idle seats plus seats with at least one request in 90 days equals the total licensed non-service active membership count for the account.
Forcing a NULL into the subquery (union a SELECT NULL) leaves NOT EXISTS unchanged and empties the NOT IN version, which demonstrates the failure on demand.

Follow-up

Adding AND user_id IS NOT NULL to the subquery also fixes NOT IN. Why is NOT EXISTS still the form you would leave in the repository?
last_seen_at looks like a shortcut for the whole query. What does it actually record, and where does it disagree with API activity?
This is a seat-reduction risk list. What threshold would you attach before handing it to an account team, and what happens to seats below it?

How would you design and analyze an A/B test to evaluate a new feature in our precision ag software?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

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

Follow-up

How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?

Measure named coverage at an assignment threshold you cannot randomise

Hard · regression-discontinuity · instrumental-variables · selection-bias

Named customer-success coverage is assigned to accounts whose arr_cents at fiscal-year start is at least $50,000. About 88% of accounts above the line receive a named owner and about 9% below it do, through documented exceptions. Roughly 200 accounts sit within $15,000 of the cutoff, and gross logo retention on the renewal-eligible base runs near 0.88. Estimate the effect of coverage on renewal, name the design, state its identifying assumptions and the test for each, and say whether this data can answer the question at all.

Approach

Say first why the naive comparison is unusable, because the answer turns on it. Coverage is assigned to the largest accounts because they are valuable and to distressed accounts because they are at risk, so selection runs in both directions at once and the naive estimate can come out with either sign depending on which rule dominated. Matching on observed size does not fix it: the risk signal that triggered coverage is the same signal that predicts renewal.
Name the design and the estimand together. This is a fuzzy regression discontinuity with the $50,000 threshold as an instrument for coverage. The estimator is the Wald ratio, the jump in renewal at the cutoff divided by the jump in coverage probability of 0.88 - 0.09 = 0.79, and the estimand is a local average treatment effect for accounts near $50,000 whose coverage is actually decided by the rule, not the average effect of coverage across the book.
Fit it as local linear regression on each side with a triangular kernel and a data-driven bandwidth (Imbens-Kalyanaraman, or Calonico-Cattaneo-Titiunik with bias-corrected robust intervals). A global polynomial fitted across the whole ARR range is not a substitute and is well documented to manufacture spurious jumps at interior points.
Test the assumptions instead of asserting them. Run a density test for bunching just above $50,000, which is exactly what a sales team structuring a deal at $50,001 to win coverage would produce and which invalidates the design outright. Check continuity at the cutoff of employee_band, acquisition_channel, deployment_model and pre-period usage. Run placebo cutoffs at other ARR values, and plot the estimate against bandwidth.
Do the power arithmetic before promising an answer. With about 100 accounts per side and a renewal base rate of 0.88 (standard deviation 0.325), the sharp-design MDE at 80% power and two-sided 0.05 is 2.80 * 0.325 * sqrt(2/100) = about 12.9 percentage points, and dividing by the 0.79 first stage gives about 16 points on the fuzzy estimand. No plausible effect of assigning an account manager is that large.
Give the honest verdict with a route forward attached. This design cannot answer the question on one fiscal year. Pool several years at the same cutoff, accepting the added assumption that the coverage model and the threshold's meaning were stable across them, or ask for a randomised holdout among accounts near the threshold, which is cheap to justify precisely because the rule is already arbitrary there.

Worked solution (45 min)

Plot the density of arr_cents in bins around $50,000 and run the manipulation test; stop and report the design as invalid if bunching is present.
Plot the first stage, share of accounts with a named owner against ARR, and confirm the jump is close to 0.79 and locally flat on each side.
Fit local linear regressions of renewal on ARR either side of the cutoff with a triangular kernel and data-driven bandwidth, take the Wald ratio, and report bias-corrected robust intervals.
Run covariate-continuity checks, placebo cutoffs, and a bandwidth-sensitivity curve for the point estimate.
Compute the MDE at the realised effective sample and write the verdict, powered or not, with the alternative design named.

Expected result: A fuzzy RD local average treatment effect at the $50,000 cutoff with a first stage of about 0.79, and an MDE of roughly 16 percentage points on the fuzzy estimand at about 100 accounts per side. The honest finding is that the design is underpowered by an order of magnitude relative to any credible coverage effect, so the recommendation is pooled fiscal years or a randomised holdout at the margin.

Verify it yourself

The first-stage jump and the outcome jump must be estimated on the same bandwidth. A Wald ratio assembled from two different bandwidths is not the regression discontinuity estimator.
Covariates that coverage could not have affected must be continuous at the cutoff. A jump in employee_band or acquisition_channel at $50,000 indicates either manipulation of the running variable or a second rule sharing the same threshold.
Point estimates should vary smoothly with bandwidth. An estimate that flips sign between a $10,000 and a $20,000 bandwidth is a fitting artefact rather than a finding.

Follow-up

The density test shows clear bunching just above $50,000. Is any part of the design salvageable, and what would you report instead?
Coverage also correlates with support ticket severity. Does adding severity as a control help, hurt, or do nothing in a regression discontinuity?
If you pool five fiscal years to gain power, what new identifying assumption have you taken on, and how would you check it?

Consumption per account always dips in the last four days

Easy · pipeline lag · restatement · reporting windows

Your consumption dashboard reads billable units per paying account from fct_usage_daily (account_id, sku_code, usage_date, billable_quantity, net_amount_cents, is_restated, first_written_at, restated_at, updated_at). Every refresh shows the final three to five days declining, and a review is scheduled on that shape. Establish empirically how long a usage_date takes to settle, separately per sku_code, and specify the trailing exclusion window every reported figure should use. Derive the number from the data; do not adopt a convention.

Approach

Treat settlement as a measurable curve rather than a belief: for each historical usage_date, compare the total captured as of age d days against that date's final settled total.
Do it per sku_code, because metering paths differ. A per-request SKU lands within hours, while a storage-month SKU is produced by a daily sweep and lands later, so one global lag number is wrong for at least one of them.
Pick the age at which a stated percentile of dates reaches a stated completeness threshold, for example the tenth percentile date reaching 99.5 percent of final, and take the slowest SKU's age as the dashboard's exclusion window.
Separate late arrival from restatement. Late rows raise totals and are fixed by waiting; restatements can move either way and are not, so report the share of the gap from each.
Encode the exclusion inside the query rather than in the chart, so anyone reusing the SQL inherits the rule, and never compare a fresh partial period against a settled one.

Follow-up

Month-end invoicing needs a number before settlement completes. How would you publish an early estimate with an honest uncertainty band attached?
What monitor would tell you the settling time has changed, without anyone remembering to re-run this analysis?

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.

Explaining a method to someone who will not follow the maths

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

Give an example of a time you had to deal with ambiguity in a project's requirements. How did you define the scope and move forward?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.

Follow-up

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

Allocate one analyst week across three competing requests

Easy · prioritisation · stakeholders · scoping

Three requests arrive the same morning and you have one week. Finance wants per-account gross margin from fct_usage_daily for a pricing review in three weeks. Sales wants a renewal-risk list for accounts with term_end_date inside 60 days. A product manager wants an experiment readout for a decision being taken on Thursday. Produce your allocation with hours attached, what you say to whoever receives less, and one thing you refuse to do this week, with the reason each decision is defensible to the person it costs.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you prioritise on decision timing and reversibility or on who asked most forcefully. Sort by the date each decision is actually taken and by what the default outcome is if nothing arrives.
Apply that sort concretely. The Thursday readout has a hard irreversible deadline and no value afterwards. The pricing review has three weeks of slack. The renewal list has a rolling deadline set by term_end_date, so part of it is urgent this week and the rest is not, which means it can be split rather than deferred whole.
Find the cheapest sufficient version of each request rather than the full version. The readout goes in full. The renewal list ships as a filtered query over renewal-eligible accounts ranked by two inspectable signals rather than as a model. The margin work is scoped to the accounts that dominate the pricing decision, since revenue is heavily skewed and the tail will not change the conclusion.
Make the trade visible in one written note to all three at once, with dates. Telling each person separately that they are the priority is how an allocation becomes a credibility problem.
Refuse something explicitly and say why. The model version of the renewal list is the usual candidate, because it cannot be evaluated without a holdout nobody has agreed to yet, and building it this week forecloses that.
Leave slack. A plan with none is a plan to miss the one deadline that cannot move.

Follow-up

The sales leader escalates to your manager. What did you already do that makes that a short conversation?
Which of the three deadlines would you push back on, and what exactly would you ask for?
What would you change about how these requests reach you so next week is not the same?

State the measured impact of your own work honestly

Hard · impact · causal inference · self-assessment

You are asked for the business impact of a renewal-risk worklist you shipped nine months ago. Customer success used it, and renewals in the covered segment came in 6 points above the prior year. Coverage was assigned by the team itself: they worked the top of your list and also the accounts they were already worried about. Produce the impact claim you are willing to defend, the number you refuse to claim, and the design you would have asked for at the start.

Approach

The interviewer is probing whether you can separate what you shipped from what you caused, and whether you would have built the measurement in rather than reconstructing it afterwards. Both halves are being scored.
Name the confound precisely. Coverage assignment is doubly selected: the largest accounts get an owner because they are valuable, and distressed accounts get one because they are at risk. The naive covered versus uncovered comparison mixes a strong positive selection with a strong negative one and can come out with either sign depending on which rule dominated. Matching on account size does not fix it, because the risk signal that triggered coverage is the same signal that predicts the outcome.
Split the claims by what each needs to be true. Ranking quality is defensible from precision at k on out-of-time renewals. Adoption is defensible from timestamps showing what share of listed accounts were contacted. The outcome claim is not defensible without a design, and saying so is the point of the exercise.
Look for identification before giving up on it. A capacity cut-off, a territory boundary, or a period in which the list existed but was unstaffed can assign coverage for reasons unrelated to account health, and any of those supports a bounded estimate.
State the design you would ask for now and its price: a randomly withheld slice of the list, held for two renewal quarters, with the expected cost in renewals stated openly. That cost is what it takes to be able to answer this question at all.
Give a bounded number rather than none. Six points with an explicit statement of how much of it you can attribute is more useful than either claiming the whole figure or declining to quantify anything.

Follow-up

Your manager wants the 6 points in a promotion packet. What wording do you accept, and what do you strike?
What would have had to be true for the naive covered versus uncovered comparison to be valid?
If the holdout costs the team real renewals, how do you justify asking for it, and to whom?