Interview guides · Kivi Capital

Kivi Capital Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

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

The 60-second brief

At Kivi Capital, the Data Scientist role sits at the intersection of rigorous quantitative analysis and high-stakes decision-making. You will be responsible for building the mathematical models and predictive frameworks that drive Kivi Capital's core business strategies. This role is not merely about data processing; it is about extracting actionable intelligence from complex datasets to influence firm-wide performance and competitive positioning.

How much statistics you need depends on the flavour of the seat. Experiment-facing work wants you deep enough to notice that repeated looks at accumulating data inflate the false positive rate of a fixed-sample test; modelling-facing work wants estimation and honest uncertainty intervals.

Focus areas

Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD
Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Read vintage curves, not blended portfolio averages

Overview

You will work within a high-velocity environment where your ability to translate abstract quantitative challenges into performant code is paramount. Whether you are optimizing logistics, refining predictive signals, or architecting robust data pipelines, your work will directly impact the firm’s operational efficiency. Success in this role requires a blend of deep technical curiosity, a disciplined approach to problem-solving, and the resilience to iterate on challenging, real-world problems.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

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.

Averaging delinquency across a book that is growing

A loan three months old cannot be 90 days past due, so a portfolio with many recent originations reports a low blended 90+ rate purely from age mix. The blended rate falls fastest exactly when originations grow fastest, which is precisely when credit quality most needs watching, so the metric moves in the reassuring direction during the riskiest period. Only comparisons at equal months on book are valid, which is what a vintage or roll-rate view enforces.

Explaining an aggregate move without decomposing the mix shift

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

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

Shipment Delivery Optimization: Design an efficient algorithm to minimize costs while meeting delivery time constraints.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.

Follow-up

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

Collapse retry chains and compute a dollar-weighted approval rate

Medium · sessionisation · window functions · dollar-weighted rates

fct_payment_authorization gives auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, requested_at, auth_result, is_reversal, channel and issuer_country. Two reference frames give the minor-unit exponent per currency and a daily rate to one reporting currency. Collapse retry chains first: attempts sharing card_token_id, merchant_id and amount_minor whose consecutive gaps are under 15 minutes form a single attempt, whose outcome is its last row. Exclude reversals and zero-amount verifications. Return a 7-day rolling dollar-weighted approval rate by channel and issuer_country.

Approach

Filter before grouping: drop is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, since neither is a purchase attempt and both would otherwise sit in the denominator.
Sort by card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor and requested_at, take the gap to the previous row within that key, mark a chain start where the gap exceeds 15 minutes or the key changes, and label chains with a cumulative sum of that flag. This is a gap rule between consecutive attempts, not a fixed clock bucket, so a chain may span more than 15 minutes in total.
Keep each chain's terminal row by requested_at. If a retry was approved, the purchase was approved; keeping the first row reports the decline that caused the retry as the outcome.
Convert amounts exactly once: amount_minor divided by 10 to the power of the currency exponent, multiplied by the reference rate for the authorization date. Do not reach for settlement_fx_rate, which is null on precisely the declined rows the denominator needs.
Build the rolling window as a ratio of two rolling sums, approved value over total value, per channel and issuer_country. A rolling mean of daily ratios weights a quiet Sunday the same as a busy Friday.

Follow-up

The count-weighted rate is flat while the dollar-weighted rate falls 80 basis points. What do you look at first?
How would you choose the 15-minute window rather than inheriting it?
A merchant moves from two retries to five. Which of your two rates moves, and is that a real change in approval quality?

Estimate a delinquency roll-rate matrix and project twelve months

Hard · roll rates · markov chain · survivorship

fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, as_of_month_end, months_on_book, delinquency_bucket, charge_off_flag, prepaid_in_full_flag and restructured_flag. Build a month-to-month transition matrix over the five delinquency buckets plus absorbing charged_off and prepaid states. Loans that stop appearing must be routed to an absorbing state rather than dropped. Project the current book forward 12 months by repeated matrix multiplication and report the projected share reaching charge-off. Handle restructured_flag explicitly, and name one place the Markov assumption fails on this data.

Approach

Build consecutive month pairs per loan by shifting as_of_month_end within loan_id, then verify the shifted value is exactly one month later. A gap is not a transition, it is an exit you have not resolved yet.
Resolve exits before counting anything. A loan whose last row carries charge_off_flag moves to charged_off, one carrying prepaid_in_full_flag moves to prepaid, and one that disappears with neither is a data question to raise rather than silently discard, because discarding it is survivorship that inflates every cure rate.
Count pairs into a 7 by 7 matrix and row-normalise. Assert every row sums to one and the two absorbing rows are the identity; a row that does not sum to one means exits were dropped.
Decide and state the restructure rule. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a dpd_60_89 to current move on a restructured loan is not a cure. Either give restructured loans their own state or carry the pre-restructure bucket, but do not let that move land in the cure cell.
Project by taking the current bucket distribution as a row vector and multiplying by the matrix twelve times. Report the charged_off entry, and report it again from an all-current starting vector so the reader can see how much of the projection comes from loans that are already delinquent today.
State the homogeneity failure plainly: transition rates depend strongly on months_on_book, so one pooled matrix applied to a book with a young mix understates early-life delinquency. If the mix is moving, estimate separate matrices by seasoning band.

Worked solution (45 min)

Sort by loan_id and as_of_month_end, shift to form (from_state, to_state) pairs, and flag pairs whose month gap is not exactly one.
For each loan's final row, assign the absorbing destination from charge_off_flag or prepaid_in_full_flag, and list loans that vanish with neither as an exception count to report.
Apply the restructure rule, then build the 7 by 7 count matrix with a cross-tabulation over ordered state categories and row-normalise it.
Assert row sums equal one and absorbing rows are the identity, then take the current month's bucket distribution as a row vector.
Multiply twelve times, report the charged_off component, and repeat from an all-current vector for comparison.

Expected result: A 7 by 7 row-stochastic matrix with identity rows for charged_off and prepaid, a current-to-current diagonal typically above 0.95, roll rates rising with bucket depth, and a 12-month projected charge-off share of a few percentage points from an all-current start and materially higher from the actual book.

Verify it yourself

Every row sums to one within floating-point tolerance, and both absorbing rows are exactly the identity.
No mass sits in cells that skip a bucket upward, such as dpd_1_29 to dpd_60_89 in one month; if there is, the pairs are not actually consecutive months.
The projection from an all-current start is strictly below the projection from the real book distribution.
Backtest by estimating on months up to t minus 12 and comparing the projected distribution with the realised one at t; a systematic optimistic gap points at dropped exits or at seasoning, not at noise.

Follow-up

How would you validate the projection against what actually happened, and over what window?
The cure rate out of dpd_30_59 rose five points last quarter. What are the candidate explanations and how would you separate them?
When would you prefer a vintage curve to a roll-rate projection, and why?

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?

Customers with no credit application, avoiding the NOT IN trap

Medium · null semantics · anti-join · scd type 2

Count current customers who have never submitted a credit application, broken out by segment. dim_customer is a slowly changing dimension type 2, so restrict to is_current = true, kyc_status = 'verified' and closed_at null. In fct_loan_application, customer_id is null for applicants who were not customers when they applied. Write the anti-join, return segment and customer_count, and state in one line what NOT IN (SELECT customer_id FROM fct_loan_application) returns against this table and why.

Approach

Pin the dimension to one row per customer first: is_current = true already guarantees that, but say so out loud, because forgetting it multiplies every count by the number of attribute versions a customer has accumulated.
Write the anti-join as NOT EXISTS with a correlated predicate on customer_id, which evaluates per row and is unaffected by nulls anywhere in the applications table.
Name the failure explicitly: NOT IN against a nullable column compares each candidate to a set containing NULL, the comparison yields UNKNOWN rather than TRUE, and the whole predicate is therefore never satisfied, so the query returns zero rows.
If NOT IN is required for some reason, add WHERE customer_id IS NOT NULL inside the subquery, which restores the intended semantics, and note that a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter is equally safe.
Group by segment and sanity-check the total against the unfiltered current-customer count minus the count of distinct applying customers.

Follow-up

Rewrite it as a LEFT JOIN with IS NULL and say when you would prefer that form to NOT EXISTS.
How does the answer change if you want customers who never applied as of a historical date rather than today?
The applications table has 40,000 rows with a null customer_id. What are those rows, and are they a data quality problem or a product fact?

Describe the trade-offs between a greedy approach and a dynamic programming solution for resource allocation.

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

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?

Given a set of delivery nodes, how would you determine the optimal routing path?

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
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?

How would you handle large-scale data ingestion for a real-time monitoring system?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Explain the time and space complexity implications of your proposed solution for the delivery problem.

Medium

Approach

State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.

Follow-up

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

Design an authorization approval rate a team cannot game

Easy · approval rate · metric gaming · mix shift

A payments team is given authorization approval rate as its quarterly target, defined as approved authorizations over all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. Using auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, channel, issuer_country and requested_at, list three ways the team can raise that number without a single additional customer purchase succeeding. Then write the definition you would put on the dashboard instead, with its exclusions, and name the one guardrail you would always read beside it.

Approach

Enumerate the rows in the table that are not purchases: zero-amount account verifications, reversals (is_reversal = true), incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null) and merchant retries of a declined attempt. Each is a lever on the numerator or the denominator that no customer would ever notice.
Name the mix levers. Recurring and card-present traffic approve at higher rates than ecommerce and cross-border, so routing changes or a marketing push into an easy channel move the blended rate with no change in decisioning quality at all.
Work the retry arithmetic rather than asserting it. A declined purchase that is retried three times and succeeds on the fourth contributes one approval and four denominator rows, which is below a healthy blended rate, so suppressing retries raises the published number while some purchases that would have succeeded on a retry now simply fail.
Replace the definition: dollar-weighted, retry chains collapsed to a single attempt per (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) within a 15-minute window, excluding reversals, zero-amount verifications and incremental authorizations, with all amounts converted into one reporting currency before summing because amount_minor is in the minor unit of transaction_currency and that unit is not always two decimals. Cut by channel and issuer_country so mix shift shows up as mix shift.
Guardrail: net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months with at least 120 days of dispute maturity. The fastest way to approve more is to decline less risk, and that bill arrives two to four months later.

Worked solution (25 min)

Compute the naive rate for one week: approved rows over all rows.
Apply the exclusions one at a time (zero-amount, is_reversal, parent_auth_id not null), recording the rate after each, so you can say what each row type was worth to the headline number.
Add a retry-collapsing CTE keyed on (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) over a 15-minute window, keeping the last attempt in each chain, and recompute.
Recompute dollar-weighted in a single reporting currency, then split by channel and issuer_country.
Write the final one-line definition with its exclusions, plus the guardrail sentence.

Expected result: Four rates for the same week (naive count, count after exclusions, count after retry collapsing, dollar-weighted after both), with the largest single gap attributed to a named row type, and a published definition that states every exclusion and the currency it reports in.

Verify it yourself

Excluding zero-amount verifications should lower the rate, since those rows approve at a higher rate than purchases. If it raises the rate, confirm that the amount_minor = 0 filter is not also catching rows with a null amount.
Collapsing retry chains raises the rate and shrinks the denominator. The numerator falls only by the number of chains that contained more than one approval.
Declines skew toward higher-value, cross-border and card-not-present transactions, so expect the dollar-weighted rate to sit below the count-weighted one. If it sits above, check for amounts summed across currencies before believing it.

Follow-up

The blended rate is flat but ecommerce cross-border fell 200 basis points. How do you present that?
Why weight by amount rather than by count, and when does the weighted version mislead?
Your 15-minute retry window merges two genuine purchases of the same amount at the same merchant. How would you bound that error?

Approval rate rose in every band yet fell overall

Medium · mix shift · simpsons paradox · segmentation

Monthly application approval rate on fct_loan_application fell from 62 to 57 percent. Cut by bureau_score band, the rate rose in every band, including the null-bureau band. Columns: application_id, channel, submitted_at, requested_amount_minor, declared_annual_income_minor, bureau_score, model_pd_12m, model_version, policy_rule_hits, decision, decided_by, decision_at. The denominator is decision in ('approve','decline'). Explain the arithmetic, quantify how much of the five-point fall is mix versus within-band movement, and say what you would tell the team that owns acquisition.

Approach

Confirm the paradox is real rather than a banding artefact. Rebuild the bands on fixed cutpoints taken from the earlier period, because quantile bands re-cut each month move with the population and can manufacture this pattern on their own.
Compute the exact decomposition rather than describing it: within = sum of w_i0 * (r_i1 - r_i0), mix = sum of r_i0 * (w_i1 - w_i0), interaction = sum of (w_i1 - w_i0) * (r_i1 - r_i0). The three terms sum identically to the change in the blended rate, so the report can state the split.
Attribute the weight change by cutting the same fixed bands by channel. Keep null bureau_score as its own band; a thin file is a population signal, not missing data to be imputed away.
Check whether the new arrivals also changed the population inside a band, by comparing requested_amount_minor and declared_annual_income_minor distributions within one band across the two months.
Deliver two numbers rather than one story: policy is looser in every band, and the funnel is being fed a different population. Those have different owners and different fixes.

Follow-up

If the new channel is profitable at its own approval rate, is the blended fall a problem at all?
How would you present this so that nobody reads the blended series unaccompanied again?
What breaks if you fix the mix by reweighting to a frozen band distribution every month?

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.

Your part, not the team's

Most data work is done by groups, so an interviewer has to work out which piece was yours. An answer that runs on 'we' for several minutes gets interrupted with a question about what you personally did, and by then the answer sounds defensive even when it is true. Mark your own contribution as you go, and name the parts that belonged to someone else instead of leaving them ambiguous. Keep a few specifics back as well, like the name of the metric or who actually objected, so a probe can be answered with something you had not already said.

Defend a vintage finding that contradicts the portfolio dashboard

Medium · vintage analysis · mix shift · stakeholder pushback

The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.

Approach

Reconcile before you contradict: show that aggregating your vintage table along the calendar diagonal reproduces the published blended series, so the disagreement is about age mix rather than about data quality.
Make the mechanism arithmetic rather than rhetorical: a loan cannot reach 90 days past due before it is 90 days old, so rapid origination growth shifts weight onto young months-on-book where the rate is structurally near zero.
Show every vintage rather than a selected pair, all indexed at months_on_book equal to 12, with cohort sizes printed beside each curve so nobody can claim the divergence rests on a thin cohort.
Handle restructuring explicitly, because restructured_flag resets days_past_due: count each loan on its worst pre-restructure state, or recent vintages will look better than they are.
Close on the decision rather than the chart: state what the divergence implies for the cutoff or the channel mix, and state in advance what evidence would make you withdraw the claim.

Follow-up

Two cohorts differ at month 12. How do you separate a seasoning effect from a genuine credit-quality effect?
Someone argues the recent vintages are simply a broker-channel mix shift. How do you test that, and what would confirm it?

Allocate one analyst-week across three competing risk requests

Medium · prioritisation · decision deadlines · stakeholder negotiation

Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.

Approach

Score each request on the decision it unblocks rather than on effort or on how loudly it arrived: what changes if it is late, and is that change reversible.
Separate deadline from value. The nine-day renewal is a hard, irreversible date with a bounded prize; the six-week cutoff has slack but a much larger downside if it ships unmeasured; the reserving number has no date but feeds external reporting, which is its own kind of hard.
Hunt for the cheap partial in each: a decline teardown restricted to the top merchants by declined value usually answers the contract question at a fraction of the full cut.
Sequence by hard date first, then by largest irreversible downside, and deliver the trade-off to all three sponsors in one message rather than three, so nobody negotiates privately against a version you told someone else.
Name what is dropped and who now owns that consequence, in writing, so the trade-off is visible rather than silently absorbed by you.

Follow-up

The credit sponsor escalates to your manager. What do you change, and what do you refuse to change?
How would you make this allocation reproducible so the next contested week is a rule application rather than a negotiation?

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?