Interview guides · Kin Insurance

Kin Insurance Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Data scientist prep for Kin Insurance: practice defining a payments and lending metric, picking its guardrails and defending the tradeoff.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Kin Insurance, you are at the intersection of advanced statistical modeling and the modernization of the insurance industry. Kin Insurance leverages technology to simplify home insurance, and your role is to translate complex data into actionable insights that drive product innovation, risk assessment, and operational efficiency. You will be responsible for building models that directly influence how the company prices risk and serves its customers, making your work highly visible and strategically vital.

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

Reconcile amounts in minor units and currency
Read vintage curves, not blended portfolio averages
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost

Overview

This role requires more than just technical proficiency; it demands a deep curiosity about the insurance business model. You will work across departments to solve open-ended problems that do not always have a clear, pre-defined path. Whether you are improving predictive accuracy or identifying new market opportunities, your contributions will directly impact the company’s bottom line and the user experience. You should expect a fast-paced environment where your ability to communicate complex findings to non-technical stakeholders is just as important as your coding ability.

While technical skills are the baseline, the most successful candidates demonstrate an ability to "think like an owner" by connecting their models to specific business outcomes.

The Kin Insurance interview process

Kin Insurance candidates report 4 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

HR Screen

Whoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.

What to demonstrate

Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed

How to prepare

Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands

Technical Assessment

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

Interviews with Hiring Manager

Much of this round runs on your own history, but the manager is not collecting a project list. They are working out what it is like when something goes wrong on your watch: how late the bad news tends to arrive, and whether a number you hand over has been checked by anyone including you. That is why the strongest material is a project where you can describe the part that did not work and what it cost. A result you cannot take full responsibility for, however clean, gives them nothing to trust you with afterwards.

What to demonstrate

Whether you volunteer the limits of a result you are proud of, or wait to be pushed onto them
How errors surfaced in your past work, and whether you or somebody else found them
Whether the scope you claim matches the level of detail you can still produce about it
What you did the first time a stakeholder acted on something of yours that turned out to be wrong

How to prepare

Rebuild one headline figure from memory down to the join and the filter, so a question about the denominator does not stall the conversation
For each project you raise, write the sentence you would say to someone who had already acted on a number that later turned out wrong
Mark which parts of a project were yours and which belonged to other people, and state that boundary yourself before anyone asks

Team Member Interviews

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

What to demonstrate

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

How to prepare

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

Where candidates lose points

Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs

Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.

Recalibrating an underwriting cutoff on approved and funded applicants only

Rejected applicants have no repayment outcome, and they were rejected because the incumbent model scored them badly, so the missingness depends directly on the outcome being modelled. Reject inference by augmentation or parcelling fills the gap using the incumbent model's own assumptions, which means it can confirm those assumptions but cannot test them. The only genuinely new information about the reject region comes from bureau performance on rejects who borrowed elsewhere, or from a deliberately randomised approval band around the cutoff.

Solving silently instead of narrating the reasoning

Say which branch you are taking and why you chose it over the alternative, for example checking the denominator first because it changes what the comparison means. A correct answer that arrives with no visible path scores below a rigorous one that needed a hint.

Naming a model class before naming the deployment constraints

Set out the latency budget, the label delay, the retraining cadence, the interpretability requirement and the number of labelled examples, then pick the model that fits them. A boosted-tree answer to a problem where each decision must be explained to the affected user is a well-executed answer to the wrong question.

Questions & practice

How would you handle imbalanced datasets when building a fraud detection model?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

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

Given our focus on home insurance, how would you approach feature engineering for geographic risk?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Simulate false alarms in a merchant chargeback monitoring rule

Medium · simulation · rare events · monitoring thresholds

Baseline matured first-chargeback rate is 12 per 10,000 settled transactions. A monitoring rule alerts when a merchant's observed monthly rate exceeds twice baseline. For monthly settled transaction counts of 500, 2,000, 10,000 and 50,000, simulate the false-alarm probability per merchant-month under the baseline, and the power to detect a merchant whose true rate is 30 per 10,000. Then, for a portfolio of 4,000 merchants split 60, 25, 10 and 5 percent across those four counts, give the expected number of false alarms per month.

Approach

Recognise the rule is a threshold on an integer count, not on a continuous rate. At n = 500, twice baseline is 24 per 10,000, so the first observable value above it is 2 chargebacks, or 40 per 10,000. Derive the trigger count for every n before simulating anything.
Draw binomial counts with numpy at p = 0.0012 and take the share at or above the trigger for the false-alarm rate, then repeat at p = 0.0030 for power. Use at least 200,000 draws per cell so a probability near 0.001 has a usable standard error.
Cross-check every simulated cell against the Poisson approximation with lambda = n*p, which is tight here because p is tiny. A mismatch almost always means the trigger count is off by one.
Weight the per-merchant false-alarm probabilities by the portfolio mix, and report the share of expected alerts contributed by each size band rather than only the total.
Close on the operating consequence: a fixed multiplicative threshold is not a constant false-alarm rate across merchant sizes, so either the threshold scales with n or small merchants need a minimum volume before the rule applies.

Worked solution (30 min)

For each n, compute trigger = floor(2 * 0.0012 * n) + 1 and print the four values before simulating.
Simulate 200,000 binomial draws per n at p = 0.0012 and take the share at or above the trigger.
Repeat at p = 0.0030 and record power for the same triggers.
Compute the Poisson tail 1 - CDF(trigger - 1, lambda = n*p) for both p values and confirm agreement within Monte Carlo error.
Multiply the false-alarm probabilities by 2400, 1000, 400 and 200 merchants and sum.

Expected result: Trigger counts of 2, 5, 25 and 121. False-alarm probability roughly 12 percent at n = 500, roughly 10 percent at n = 2,000, under 0.1 percent at n = 10,000 and effectively zero at n = 50,000. Power against 30 per 10,000 roughly 44, 72, 85 and above 99 percent. Expected false alarms about 390 per month, with over 99 percent of them coming from the two smallest bands.

Verify it yourself

The four trigger counts are derived, not guessed: each is the smallest integer strictly above 0.0024n, giving 2, 5, 25 and 121. Derive them in exact or integer arithmetic, because 20.0012*10000 evaluates to 23.999999999999996 in binary floating point and floor-plus-one silently returns 24.
Simulated probabilities match the Poisson tail at lambda = n*p within about two Monte Carlo standard errors.
Power exceeds the false-alarm rate at every n; if it does not, the null and alternative rates are swapped.
Doubling the draw count moves each probability by less than its own simulated standard error.

Follow-up

How would you set a threshold that holds the false-alarm rate roughly constant across merchant size?
The rule reads the transaction month, but disputes arrive for up to 120 days afterwards. What does that do to the alert and how would you fix it?
What does a month of these false alarms cost, and how would you decide whether it is worth paying?

Accident-quarter loss ratio on earned rather than written premium

Hard · loss ratio · earned vs written · development age

From fct_policy_period_monthly, compute the accident-quarter loss ratio by product_line: incurred losses, being paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor, over earned_premium_minor for the same accident quarter. State explicitly whether loss_adjustment_expense_minor is included and apply that choice consistently. Also output the same ratio computed on written_premium_minor so the two can be compared. The table holds current values with no valuation-date snapshot. Say in one line which comparison this schema cannot support and what you would need to support it.

Approach

Derive the accident quarter from as_of_month with date_trunc, and note that the table already attributes losses to the month of the loss event while earning premium pro rata into the same month, which is what makes the two sides comparable at all.
Aggregate earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor and the three loss components to product_line and accident quarter in one pass, keeping loss adjustment expense as its own column so the inclusion choice is a final-select decision rather than something buried in a CTE.
Compute both ratios side by side and a third column for their difference, because the size and sign of that difference is a direct read on whether the book grew or shrank in the quarter.
State the limitation plainly: every row carries today's reserve estimate, so each accident quarter is observed at a different development age and a cross-quarter comparison mixes development with underwriting. A fixed development age needs a valuation-date dimension, that is one row per accident period per valuation, which this table does not have.
Guard against the mirror-image error on the numerator by confirming ibnr_reserve_minor is non-zero on recent quarters; if it is null or zero there, the recent periods are understated twice over and the series is not usable.

Worked solution (40 min)

CTE quarterly: group fct_policy_period_monthly by product_line and date_trunc('quarter', as_of_month), summing earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor and loss_adjustment_expense_minor.
Final SELECT: build incurred_minor as the three loss components plus the LAE column, with the LAE inclusion written as a named expression so the choice is visible on the page.
Emit loss_ratio_earned and loss_ratio_written, both cast to numeric, plus their difference and the written-to-earned premium ratio.
Order by product_line and accident quarter, and append the one-line note about the missing valuation dimension to the query as a comment.

Expected result: One row per product_line and accident quarter with earned and written premium, incurred losses, both ratios and their difference. In quarters where written premium exceeds earned, loss_ratio_written is strictly below loss_ratio_earned, and the gap widens with the growth rate.

Verify it yourself

For a mature product line with flat volume, summed earned premium over a full policy term is close to summed written premium, so the two ratios converge there.
The sign of loss_ratio_earned minus loss_ratio_written matches the sign of written premium minus earned premium in every quarter, which is an arithmetic identity and not a data finding.
Recent accident quarters have non-zero ibnr_reserve_minor; a zero there means the numerator is missing its tail and the ratio is understated.
Within a quarter, loss_ratio_earned divided by loss_ratio_written equals written_premium_minor divided by earned_premium_minor exactly, because both ratios share one numerator. Any deviation means the LAE term was built into one ratio and not the other, which is the real test that the inclusion choice was applied consistently.
Recomputing with LAE excluded scales each quarter's ratio by incurred_minor / (incurred_minor + lae_minor). That factor is not constant across quarters unless LAE happens to be booked as a fixed fraction of incurred losses, so a uniform shift is evidence about how LAE is loaded, not evidence that the query is self-consistent — use the previous check for that.

Follow-up

Written premium exceeds earned premium by 18 percent this quarter and by 3 percent two years ago. What happened to the book, and what does it do to each ratio?
How would you build a development triangle from a valuation-dated version of this table, and what would you use the chain-ladder factors for?
Statutory presentation conventionally takes the expense ratio on written premium while the loss ratio uses earned. How do you avoid a combined ratio that quietly mixes the two bases?

Count-weighted and dollar-weighted approval rates on one currency

Easy · aggregation · denominators · minor units

Using fct_payment_authorization, report the trailing 7-day authorization approval rate two ways for transaction_currency = 'EUR': count-weighted, and dollar-weighted on amount_minor. Exclude is_reversal = true, exclude incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null), and exclude zero-amount account verifications. auth_result = 'approved' is the numerator; the four declined_* values make up the rest of the denominator. Return channel, attempts, approved_attempts, approval_rate_count and approval_rate_value. State every exclusion and its reason before you write the SELECT.

Approach

Say the denominator out loud first: attempts on a single transaction currency, excluding reversals, incremental authorizations and zero-amount verifications, because none of those is a purchase attempt a merchant is trying to get approved.
Filter requested_at against a half-open interval (>= start AND < end) so the boundary day is neither dropped nor double counted.
Compute both rates in one pass with FILTER clauses: COUNT() FILTER (WHERE auth_result = 'approved') over COUNT(), and SUM(amount_minor) FILTER (WHERE auth_result = 'approved') over SUM(amount_minor).
Cast one side of each ratio to numeric before dividing, since amount_minor and the counts are integers and integer division silently truncates to zero.
Group by channel and sort by the value-weighted rate, then read the gap between the two rates as a statement about where the declines sit rather than as noise.

Follow-up

The two rates diverge by four points on the ecommerce channel but agree on card_present. What does that tell you, and what would you cut next?
How would you extend this to all currencies without summing amount_minor across them?
Which of the four decline reasons belong in the denominator of a rate you would put in front of a risk team, and which are really the network's problem?

We are seeing a shift in claim patterns; how would you design an analysis to identify the root cause?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

Follow-up

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

How would you determine if a specific insurance policy is profitable?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.

Follow-up

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

If you were tasked with improving our customer retention rates, what data points would you prioritize?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning in the context of insurance risk.

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Estimate the marginal effect of approval at a score cutoff

Hard · regression discontinuity · instrumental variables · selection

Policy auto-approves applications with bureau_score at or above 660 and routes 640 to 659 to manual review, which approves about 35 percent of them. You cannot randomise approvals. Using fct_loan_application and a bureau-sourced panel that reports 12-month serious delinquency on any trade line for approved and declined applicants alike, estimate the effect of approval at the margin. State the identifying assumptions you would test rather than assert, the estimator and its tuning choices, and exactly what the estimate does and does not license.

Approach

Set the design up as a fuzzy regression discontinuity, because crossing 660 changes approval probability sharply but not from zero to one. Let Z = 1{bureau_score >= 660} be the instrument, approval be the treatment, and 12-month serious delinquency be the outcome. The estimate is the ratio of the jump in the outcome to the jump in approval probability, which is two-stage least squares with Z as the instrument and identifies a local average treatment effect for compliers at the cutoff.
Insist on the bureau panel as the outcome source. Funded loans exist on both sides of 660 only because manual review approves some applicants below it, and those are selected on whatever the reviewer saw; an outcome defined only on funded loans would reintroduce exactly the selection the design is meant to remove.
Test the assumptions instead of listing them. Check density continuity of bureau_score at 660 with a McCrary-style or local-polynomial density test, since brokers and applicants can sometimes trigger a bureau refresh and a heaped density at the threshold kills the design. Check that pre-determined covariates, including declared_annual_income_minor, channel, product_code and model_version, are continuous at the cutoff. Check policy_rule_hits and the pricing table for any other rule that fires at exactly 660, because a second discontinuity at the same point is not separable from the first.
Choose the estimator deliberately. Local linear regression with a triangular kernel and an MSE-optimal bandwidth, with bias-corrected robust confidence intervals. Do not fit a high-order global polynomial, which puts weight on observations far from the cutoff and produces artefacts at the boundary. Because bureau_score is an integer, the running variable has mass points, so cluster standard errors by score value or use an approach designed for discrete running variables.
Respect outcome maturity. Include only application cohorts with a full 12 months of bureau observation; a recent cohort with partial observation will look cleaner and will drag the estimate.
State the limits in the deliverable. The estimate is the effect at 660 on applicants whose approval status is determined by the threshold. It does not license moving the cutoff to 620, because both the first stage and the outcome relationship differ away from 660 and because a policy change at scale shifts the applicant mix. Report bandwidth sensitivity alongside the point estimate.

Worked solution (40 min)

Assemble the application-level panel: bureau_score, decision, funded status, and the bureau-sourced 12-month serious delinquency flag, restricted to cohorts with 12 full months of outcome observation.
Plot the first stage, being approval probability against bureau_score in one-point bins, and confirm a visible jump of roughly 0.65 at 660 (about 1.00 above against about 0.35 below).
Plot the reduced form, being delinquency against bureau_score in the same bins, and read the jump at 660 off a local linear fit on each side.
Estimate the Wald ratio as reduced form over first stage, equivalently two-stage least squares with Z = 1{score >= 660}, using a triangular kernel, an MSE-optimal bandwidth, bias-corrected robust intervals, and standard errors clustered by integer score.
Run the assumption battery: density continuity at 660, covariate continuity, placebo cutoffs at 650 and 670, and bandwidth sensitivity at 0.5x and 2x the selected bandwidth.
Write the result as a complier average effect at 660 with its interval, its bandwidth sensitivity table, and an explicit sentence on what it does not license.

Expected result: A fuzzy RDD estimate delivered as the Wald ratio, jump in 12-month serious delinquency divided by a first-stage jump in approval probability of about 0.65, fitted by local linear regression with a triangular kernel at an MSE-optimal bandwidth, with robust bias-corrected intervals and standard errors clustered on the integer score. It is reported as a local average treatment effect for compliers at 660 only, accompanied by the density test, the covariate-continuity table and the bandwidth sensitivity, with an explicit statement that it does not support moving the cutoff.

Verify it yourself

Reduced form divided by first stage must equal the two-stage least squares coefficient to numerical precision; if it does not, the sample or the bandwidth differs between the two fits.
Placebo cutoffs at 650 and 670 should show no jump in either the first stage or the outcome.
Pre-determined covariates should be continuous at 660; a jump in income or channel mix at the threshold means applicants or brokers are sorting and the design is compromised.
The point estimate should be stable when the bandwidth is halved and doubled; large movement means the local linear fit is being driven by observations far from the cutoff.

Follow-up

Manual reviewers below the cutoff see documents the score does not. What does that do to the monotonicity assumption, and how would you look for defiers?
You are offered a randomised approval band across 650 to 659 for one quarter. What does it buy you that the discontinuity does not, and how would you price the expected loss of running it?
The density test shows a modest pile-up just above 660. What are the possible mechanisms, and which of them leave the design usable?

A single day of settled volume comes in thirty percent low

Medium · pipeline failure · null rates · data freshness

Yesterday's settled volume is 30 percent below the same weekday across the previous eight weeks, while authorization counts and approved counts for the day look normal. You have fct_payment_authorization with requested_at, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency, created_at and updated_at, plus warehouse load metadata. Decide within the hour whether this is a real drop or a load problem, and say what you would post to the on-call channel in either case.

Approach

Check the data before the business. Compare max(updated_at) and row counts per load partition for the affected day against the prior eight same weekdays; a truncated load usually shows as a count deficit confined to a specific hour range.
Measure null rates per column by requested_at date. Authorization fields present while settled_at and settlement_amount_minor are null points at the settlement feed; a uniform deficit across all columns points at ingestion.
Separate late arrival from loss. Settlement lands after authorization by design, so re-measure the same day 24 and 48 hours later. A deficit that closes on the next load is lag, not a drop.
Reconcile against the independent source: tie the day's settled total to the settlement ledger or acquirer file. If the ledger has the money and the warehouse does not, the business number was never wrong.
Only after those four steps consider a business explanation, and then only if a segment cut produces a coherent story rather than a flat haircut spread evenly across every merchant and channel.
Close by splitting the alert: a freshness and completeness check on the settlement feed, separate from the volume alert, so the next occurrence is classified automatically.

Follow-up

How would you make the daily volume alert immune to settlement lag without also hiding a genuine drop?
What is the right way to restate a published number after a backfill lands?
Which check catches a partial load that is uniform across the day rather than concentrated in one window?

Suggested practice checklist

Four days spend equal time on query work, statistics, modelling and product judgement at deliberately shallow depth, which produces a scored map of where you actually stand. The last three days spend everything on the two areas the role weights most, and close by re-running day one to measure movement.

Day 1 — Breadth pass: query fluency

Solve six prompts spanning aggregation, joins, window functions and date arithmetic in 60 minutes total, stopping at 10 minutes each whether or not it works, and mark every prompt as solved, solved slowly, or stuck.
For each unsolved prompt write the single blocking sentence (I lost the grain, I did not know the frame clause, I could not express the date boundary) instead of reading the solution.
Translate one pandas transformation you know well into SQL and one SQL query into pandas, checking that both return the same row count and the same totals.

Deliverable: A scored six-row table, one line per prompt, saved for the day-seven re-run.

Day 2 — Breadth pass: statistics and inference

Answer ten short questions in writing with nothing open: what a p-value is conditional on, what a 95 percent interval covers across repeated samples, when a paired test is the right one, what the bootstrap estimates, why multiple comparisons inflate false positives, how controlling the family-wise error rate differs from controlling the false discovery rate, what power depends on, what a missed real effect costs a product, the three situations where the central limit theorem does not rescue you (small n, very heavy tails, dependent observations), and what a standard error is the standard deviation of.
Grade yourself against a reference and count only the answers that were exactly right, not the ones that were nearly right.
Rewrite the two weakest answers the following morning from memory in full sentences.

Deliverable: Ten graded answers with an honest count of exact hits.

Day 3 — Breadth pass: modelling

Take one tabular dataset end to end in 90 minutes: a leakage-safe split, a baseline that is not a model (majority class or historical mean), one regularized linear model, one gradient-boosted tree, and a single evaluation metric chosen before you look at any result.
Write why that metric fits the cost structure: precision at a fixed recall for alerting, calibration for anything feeding a price or a threshold, ranking metrics for retrieval, and note that area under the ROC curve is insensitive to class balance in a way that can flatter a rare-positive problem.
Name the leak you were most likely to introduce (an encoding fit on all rows before splitting, or a feature computed after the label's timestamp) and write the check that would have caught it.

Deliverable: A notebook whose first cell states the metric and the baseline, plus two lines on what beat what and by how much.

Day 4 — Breadth pass: product judgement

Answer three case prompts aloud at 15 minutes each, timing how long passes before you state a success metric.
For one case write the first segmentation you would run and the row counts you expect per segment, so that a tiny segment cannot quietly drive the conclusion.
Take a metric definition you did not write, from a public dashboard, a textbook, or documentation you already have open, and list every place two analysts implementing it would diverge: which rows the denominator admits, whether the unit is an account or a person, what the time window is anchored to, and what happens to data that arrives late. Then write the one question that would close the largest of those gaps.

Deliverable: Three recorded case answers plus an ambiguity list for a metric someone else defined, ending in the single question you would ask about it.

Day 5 — Depth, first area

Rank the four areas by how many bullet points in the role description each one covers, pick the top one, and spend the entire day inside it.
Work the six hardest problems you can find in that area and for each write the generalizable move you should have reached for first, rather than the answer.
Re-solve the two you failed the same evening with notes closed.

Deliverable: Six generalizable moves written as instructions to yourself, not as solutions.

Day 6 — Depth, second area, and the seam between them

Repeat the depth protocol on the second-ranked area with the same six-problem structure.
Construct one problem that requires both areas at once, for example a metric redefinition whose effect you must validate with a test whose readout you then have to query.
Solve your own combined problem end to end and note where the handoff between the two areas cost you time.

Deliverable: One combined problem, solved end to end, with the handoff failure written down.

Day 7 — Integration and re-measurement

Re-run the six prompts from day one under the same clock and compare both correctness and time.
Run a 60-minute mixed mock that moves between areas without warning, since switching cost is what breadth passes do not train.
Write the two areas you would still fail on, and the sentence you will use in the interview when you hit one of them.

Deliverable: A before-and-after score table plus a written plan for the two remaining gaps.

Stories where someone disagreed with you

Have two ready. In one, the data was on your side and you had to move someone who outranked you. In the other, the pushback was correct and you changed position. The second is the harder story and it lands better, because it shows you separate being right from being attached to an answer. Name the person's actual objection.

Walk me through your experience with statistical modeling and how you validate your model performance.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Tell me about a time you had to pivot your strategy based on feedback from a stakeholder.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.

Follow-up

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

Retract a published number after finding a currency bug

Medium · error disclosure · minor units · process repair

Two weeks ago you published an interchange and fraud analysis that summed amount_minor across fct_payment_authorization without converting currencies. Minor units are not two decimals everywhere: some currencies carry none and some carry three, so the sum has no interpretation. A pricing decision is already in flight on the back of it. You now have corrected figures. Produce the retraction: what you send, to whom, in what order, and what you change in the process so this class of error is caught next time rather than trusted next time.

Approach

Size the error before announcing it, because saying the number is wrong without a magnitude and a direction forces every reader to assume the worst case.
Check whether the conclusion actually flips: if the ranking that drove the pricing decision is unchanged, that belongs in the first sentence beside the correction rather than buried at the end.
Tell the person acting on it first and directly, then the wider distribution, using the same text, so nobody learns about it secondhand.
Write the correction as four parts: the old number, the cause in one clause, the effect on the pending decision, and the new number. Leave out self-flagellation, which makes the reader do emotional work instead of acting.
Fix the class rather than the instance: a rule that a sum over amount_minor either groups by transaction_currency or passes through both conversion steps, exponent scaling and then a dated rate into one named reporting currency, plus a standing reconciliation of the settled subset to the settlement ledger inside each settlement_currency.

Follow-up

The corrected figures do not change the decision. Do you still send the correction, and what does that choice signal?
What automated check would have caught this, where would it live, and what would it cost in false alarms?