Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, you will apply advanced statistical modeling, machine learning, and data engineering to solve some of the nation's most complex scientific, energy, and national security challenges. Your work bridges theoretical modeling and massive computational datasets, translating raw experimental data into actionable insights for research teams and programmatic leaders. Whether you are optimizing energy resilience systems, accelerating physics simulations, or developing predictive maintenance models, your contributions directly impact high-consequence national infrastructure and scientific discovery.

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 a metric move by segment and mix
• Separate novelty effects from durable behaviour change
• Turn a vague request into a measurable question

Overview

This role requires a unique balance of rigorous statistical methodology, computational scalability, and domain curiosity. You will collaborate closely with physicists, engineers, and domain experts who expect clear, interpretable, and robust data products. Because the lab operates at the intersection of high-performance computing and real-world application, you will frequently encounter high-dimensional datasets, noisy measurements, and complex experimental workflows that require creative problem-solving and deep technical ownership.

Candidates entering this interview process should expect a research-adjacent evaluation environment. While technical execution matters deeply, interviewers place an exceptionally high value on your ability to articulate your research history, justify your methodological choices, and demonstrate collaborative potential within multidisciplinary lab teams. Preparation should therefore focus equally on communicating past project impact and mastering core data science fundamentals.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory interview process

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

Online Application

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

Recruiter Outreach

A screening call is a matching exercise run by someone who will not evaluate your statistics. They are checking that the work described on your resume is work you personally did, and that its scope matches the level the role is written for. Logistics get settled in the same half hour so nobody spends an interviewer's afternoon on a mismatch. The answer that fails is the one narrated in the plural. If every sentence is 'we built' and 'the team decided', there is nothing specific to write down about you. Name the piece that was yours, the decision you made inside it, and what changed after.

What to demonstrate

• Whether the ownership implied by your resume survives one round of follow-up about who actually did which part
• Whether your described scope (data size, stakeholders, what shipped) matches the seniority the role is written at
• Whether timeline, location and compensation expectations make the rest of the loop worth scheduling

How to prepare

• Rewrite your top three resume bullets in the first person singular, each with the decision you made and what moved afterwards, then say them out loud once so the 'we' does not return under pressure
• Attach one number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where impact was never measured, say that plainly rather than inventing a figure
• Settle your compensation range before the call and give it as a range with a reason behind it, such as current total comp or a competing timeline, instead of deflecting the question twice

Initial Phone Screening

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

Practical Task

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.

Panel Conversations

A loop is not scored one interview at a time. The people you meet compare notes afterwards, usually in a meeting you are not in, and the outcome turns on what each of them can say about you when asked. That rewards something other than survival: every room needs one specific thing worth repeating, and none of them can contradict another. The common way to lose is to tell the same project four times with different numbers in it, or to be uniformly fine in a way that leaves nobody with anything to argue for.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your account of a project survives being told twice, with the same scale, the same metric definition and the same numbers each time
• Whether each interviewer leaves with one concrete claim they could make on your behalf later, rather than an absence of complaints
• Whether a question you already answered in an earlier room gets the same answer at the same depth, without visible impatience

How to prepare

• Write a one-page fact sheet for your two or three main projects that fixes the numbers you will quote: rows of data, the metric as a single sentence, the effect you measured and how long the work took. Say them aloud from the sheet until they come out identical every time
• For each kind of room you expect, decide the one sentence you want that interviewer repeating in a debrief, then check during the mock that you said it outright instead of implying it
• Rehearse answering the same project question twice in one sitting, the second time as though you had not just answered it, because the thing that needs fixing is the flatness that creeps into a repeated story

Comprehensive Loop

Where a loop ends with a senior leader, that conversation is rarely another skills test. The technical signal already exists by then, so the questions tend to open up: what you would look at first, where a metric you have heard about could mislead, what you would push back on. The decision being made is scope, which in practice means level and how much you would be trusted to own unsupervised. Treating it as a formality is the usual mistake. An open question late in the day is still being scored, and a vague answer reads as someone who has not run anything themselves.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your view of the business has anything specific behind it, given that you are working only from what is public and are expected to say so
• Whether the scope of work you describe owning matches the scope of the role, instead of sitting a level below it
• Whether you can disagree with something concrete and stay useful about it, rather than agreeing with everything said in the room
• Whether your questions are ones only this person could answer, as opposed to ones the recruiter already covered

How to prepare

• Build one view you could defend for two minutes using only public information: what the funnel probably looks like, which metric likely drives decisions, and where that metric could mislead. Being wrong for a stated reason survives this round; having no view does not
• Write down the largest piece of work you have owned from question to decision, who else touched it, and what you decided alone, then check that it reads at the level you are interviewing for
• Prepare one thing you would want changed if you joined and phrase it as a question rather than a verdict, so it opens a conversation instead of closing one

Where candidates lose points

Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel

The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.

Reading a pooled rate that moved because the mix moved, not because any behaviour changed

A pooled conversion rate is a weighted average, and a shift in the weights can move it in the opposite direction to every one of its parts. A paid campaign that brings low-converting traffic drops overall signup conversion even if desktop, mobile web and app conversion each rose that week, which is Simpson's paradox and it is the single most common cause of an inexplicable dashboard move. The discipline is to decompose before explaining: recompute the rate holding last period's segment weights fixed, and compare that counterfactual to the actual, so the mix effect and the rate effect are separated numerically rather than argued about. Segment on the dimensions that actually reweight, which in this domain are almost always device_type, referrer_channel, country and new versus returning.

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.

Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised

Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.

Questions & practice

Can you walk me through the technical details of the AI and machine learning projects listed on your resume?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Can you explain how you validated the performance of your machine learning models in your academic or professional work?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

1. Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
2. Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
3. Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

• What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
• Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Permutation test for a difference in conversion rates

Medium · permutation test · resampling · inference

Write a two-sided permutation test from scratch for a difference in conversion rates, using no scipy hypothesis function. Input: a DataFrame with unit_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}, one row per randomisation unit. Compute the observed difference in proportions, then build the null distribution by reshuffling the variant labels while holding each arm's size fixed. Report the p-value as (1 + the count of permuted statistics at least as extreme in absolute value) / (B + 1) with B at least 10,000, and return the permutation distribution.

Approach

1. Name the null being tested: the sharp null that each unit's outcome is the same under either label. That is what licenses permuting labels, and it is stronger than the null of equal means, which matters when someone asks whether the test is valid under unequal variances.
2. Extract converted to a single numpy array of 0s and 1s and record n_treatment. Every permutation is then just a reshuffle of one array, and the treatment mean is the mean of the first n_treatment entries of the shuffled array.
3. Vectorise the B permutations with rng.permuted on a tiled 2-D array, or with argsort of a (B, n) random matrix. A Python loop calling np.random.shuffle B times is correct but roughly an order of magnitude slower and often runs past the time limit.
4. Use the +1 correction in both numerator and denominator. Without it a p-value of exactly 0 is reportable, which is false: the observed labelling is itself one of the permutations, so the smallest attainable p-value is 1/(B+1).
5. Compare the resulting p-value against a two-proportion z-test as a sanity check. At these sample sizes they should agree closely; a large divergence means the statistic or the shuffle is wrong, not that the permutation test found something subtle.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. y = df['converted'].to_numpy(); n_t = (df['variant'] == 'treatment').sum(); obs = y[treat_mask].mean() - y[~treat_mask].mean().
2. Build the null: for B draws, shuffle y and take the mean of the first n_t entries minus the mean of the rest.
3. p = (1 + (np.abs(null) >= abs(obs) - 1e-12).sum()) / (B + 1), with the small tolerance so exact ties count as at least as extreme.
4. Return obs, p and the null array; plot or describe the null to confirm it is centred at 0.

Expected result: The observed difference, a p-value in [1/(B+1), 1], and a null distribution whose mean is approximately 0 and whose standard deviation approximately matches the analytic pooled standard error sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)).

Verify it yourself

• The null distribution's mean is within a few Monte Carlo standard errors of 0; if it is centred on the observed difference, the code bootstrapped instead of permuted.
• The null's standard deviation agrees with the analytic pooled standard error to within a couple of percent.
• The p-value agrees with a hand-computed two-proportion z-test p-value to within about 0.01 at these sample sizes.
• Setting converted identical in both arms by construction yields a p-value near 1, and a planted large effect yields the floor of 1/(B+1).

Follow-up

• The arms are 200 and 20,000 units. Does the permutation test stay valid, and what happens to its resolution at B = 10,000?
• Give a 95 percent confidence interval for the difference. Can you get it from this permutation distribution, and if not, what would you run instead?
• The randomisation unit is user_id but the outcome is per session. What breaks, and what is the fix?

Can you discuss how you would structure a take-home analysis task from data ingestion to final presentation?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Can you write a function to convert a base 10 integer to a string representation in a different base?

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

1. Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
2. Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
3. 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?

Seven-day activation rate by weekly signup cohort

Easy · cohorts · activation · date-bounds

dim_user holds user_id, account_created_at_utc, is_internal. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action. A user is activated when core-action events fall on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Return, for the last twelve complete weekly signup cohorts, the cohort week, cohort size, activated users and the activation rate. Exclude is_internal users. Every signup in the cohort week stays in the denominator, including users who never returned.

Approach

1. Start from dim_user as the denominator spine with is_internal = FALSE and DATE_TRUNC('week', account_created_at_utc) as the cohort key. Driving the query from the event table instead would silently condition on having events and delete the entire non-activating population.
2. Join fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and a per-user bound, occurred_at_utc >= u.account_created_at_utc AND occurred_at_utc < u.account_created_at_utc + interval '7 days'. The bound is correlated to each user's own signup timestamp, not a single global date range.
3. Aggregate per user with COUNT(DISTINCT occurred_at_utc::date) >= 2, then LEFT JOIN that back onto the spine and COALESCE the flag to FALSE so non-activators contribute a zero rather than vanishing.
4. Restrict the published cohorts to those whose week ended at least eight days ago. A cohort younger than that has not finished its seven-day window, so its rate is mechanically low and reads as a decline.
5. Roll up by summing the numerator and denominator per cohort week, and state the two-distinct-days threshold next to the number since it is a choice that re-bases the whole history if changed.

Worked solution (20 min)

1. Write the cohort spine and confirm its total equals the count of non-internal signups in the date range.
2. Write the per-user distinct-active-days CTE with both interval bounds and inspect a handful of users manually.
3. LEFT JOIN, COALESCE the flag, aggregate to cohort week.
4. Apply the eight-day publication lag and drop the incomplete cohort.
5. Re-run with a closed upper bound (<= +7 days) and note how many users change state, to show the boundary is doing work.

Expected result: Twelve rows, one per cohort week, each with cohort_size, activated and rate. Cohort sizes sum to the total non-internal signup count across those twelve weeks. No cohort is younger than eight days.

Verify it yourself

• activated is never greater than cohort_size in any row.
• A user with three core actions on a single day is not counted as activated.
• Removing the LEFT JOIN in favour of an inner join raises every rate, which demonstrates the denominator was being conditioned on survival.
• Cohort sizes sum to an independent COUNT(*) over dim_user for the same range.

Follow-up

• Why two distinct days rather than one event? What happens to the published history if someone changes it to three?
• Invited seats and SSO-provisioned users get an account_created_at_utc at provisioning and may never sign in. Should they be in this denominator?
• The rate rose 3 points this week. What do you check before believing it?

How would you approach designing an experiment or data pipeline for an unfamiliar energy resilience dataset?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

1. Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
2. State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
3. Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.

Follow-up

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

What specific tools, libraries, and frameworks did you utilize for your previous data science research, and why did you choose them?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Define success for halving the free trial length

Hard · monetisation · cohort horizon · trials

A proposal cuts the free trial from 30 days to 14. Trial-to-paid conversion is defined on fct_subscription_period: numerator, subscription_id whose first row with is_first_paid_period = TRUE has period_status IN ('active','past_due') and period_start_utc no later than 14 days after trial end; denominator, subscription_id whose first row has period_status = 'trialing' and period_start_utc in the cohort week. dim_account (account_id, account_created_at_utc, signup_surface) is also available and joins to fct_subscription_period on account_id. Explain why conversion rate alone cannot decide this, define the metric that can, and state the horizon and lag your readout needs. Deliverable: the decision metric and the readout schedule.

Approach

1. Show the incomparability numerically before arguing about it: at a fixed calendar readout date, a larger share of the 14-day arm's cohorts have completed trial end plus 14 days plus settlement, so the short arm leads mechanically and the lead shrinks as both arms mature.
2. Fix the censoring first, and do not mistake a rescaling for a fix. The given conversion rate already has trial starts as its denominator, so 'paid accounts per 1,000 trial starts' is that same ratio multiplied by 1,000 and answers nothing new. What the censoring needs is a fixed cohort age: read both arms at account_created_at_utc plus 60 days, which clears the long arm's full 30 + 14 + 3 = 47-day path to a settled first payment, so neither arm is censored at readout.
3. Then move the denominator upstream, which is a separate fix and the only one that catches a higher share of a smaller population: paid accounts per 1,000 dim_account rows created in the cohort week. Precondition — this diverges from the conversion rate only when trial length is visible before the trial starts, on pricing pages, in ads or in the signup flow. If the arms are assigned at trial start and nothing upstream differs, trial starts per 1,000 new accounts is equal across arms by construction and the two metrics are the same comparison rescaled. Report that ratio per arm and say which regime you are in rather than assuming one.
4. Add the leg neither denominator can see: a shorter trial converts users who had less time to reach activation, so read month-3 gross revenue churn and week-4 retention of the converted cohort, and read activation at trial day 7 to see whether the converted population changed composition.
5. Audit 'past_due' before comparing, since the definition counts it as converted: report the rate with and without it per arm, because a gain that sits entirely inside past_due is a billing artefact rather than a conversion effect.
6. Be explicit that the twelve-month consequence is not observable inside a planning cycle: pre-register that the decision is made on the 60-day metric, that the twelve-month cohort read will be published as a check, and what action follows if the two disagree.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. Tabulate, at a fixed calendar readout date, the share of each arm's cohorts that have completed trial end plus 14 days plus 3 days of settlement, and show the gap.
2. Define the decision metric as paid accounts per 1,000 dim_account rows created in the cohort week, evaluated at account_created_at_utc plus 60 days for both arms, and write the 30 + 14 + 3 = 47 arithmetic that justifies 60 as the common clock.
3. Report trial starts per 1,000 new accounts per arm beside it, so the reader can see whether the upstream denominator is doing any work in this test or whether it is arithmetically pinned to the conversion rate.
4. Compute the earliest honest readout date from the enrolment window: 60 days after the last account creation in the window plus a 3-day settlement lag, with no partial-cohort comparison permitted before it.
5. Add the quality leg: month-3 gross revenue churn, week-4 retention of converted accounts, and day-7 activation per arm.
6. Report the conversion rate with and without past_due per arm, and state which version the decision uses.

Expected result: A decision metric stated as paid accounts per 1,000 new accounts at a fixed 60-day cohort age measured from account creation, the trial-start rate published per arm so it is explicit whether that denominator change carries any information here, a readout date computed from the enrolment window, and at least two quality metrics capable of overturning a conversion-rate win.

Verify it yourself

• Both arms must have identical elapsed time at readout: compute min and max of (readout_date minus account_created_at_utc) per arm and confirm the two ranges match.
• Trial starts per 1,000 new accounts must be reported per arm. If that ratio is equal across arms, the conversion rate and the per-new-account metric are the same comparison rescaled and cannot diverge — so never present them as two independent confirmations. Only a gap in that ratio gives the per-new-account metric information the conversion rate does not carry.
• The past_due share of the numerator should be similar across arms; a gap there is a payment-failure effect and does not belong in a conversion claim.

Follow-up

• What happens to a user who would have converted on day 20, and how would you detect that population in the data?
• The short arm has lower day-7 activation but higher conversion. Reconcile those two facts into one story.
• What randomisation unit do you use here, and what goes wrong with the obvious alternatives?

Separate a definition edit from a behaviour change

Easy · definition-change · metric-versioning · cohorts

Seven-day activation rate is documented as core actions on at least 2 distinct UTC dates inside the first seven days after account_created_at_utc, and every cohort published through last week was computed on that definition. The dashboard now reads 38% for the signup cohort that started Monday, against 31% for the cohort before it. Two things landed in that week: an onboarding change, and a commit to the metric's SQL that you have not read yet and that came with no documentation update. You have dim_user, fct_event and the metric's version history. Deliver two numbers: how many of the 7 points are behaviour and how many are the definition. Then say which published cohorts are no longer comparable.

Approach

1. Diff the metric SQL across the commit boundary and enumerate every changed predicate individually: the distinct-day threshold, the is_internal exclusion, the is_core_action source, the window bounds, and the identity key. A single commit routinely changes more than one, and each has its own sign.
2. Dual-run both definitions over the same 26 cohort weeks. The definition effect is the level shift between the two series computed on identical data, which isolates it from anything that happened in the world.
3. Read the behaviour effect only from the old-definition series, comparing the new cohort to its own trailing cohorts. The new-definition series cannot answer the behaviour question because it has no pre-period.
4. Explain the mechanism of the changed predicate rather than only its size. Lowering a distinct-day threshold from 2 to 1 admits every user who acted once in a single session, which is a large and low-intent population, so a several-point jump is the expected magnitude and not a surprise.
5. State the restatement plan: pick one definition, backfill the full history on it, and annotate the break date. A series carrying two definitions is not a time series.

Follow-up

• The onboarding team wants the 1-day threshold kept because it is easier to move. What is your argument, and what would change your mind?
• How would you make a definition change visible to every consumer of this metric without relying on people reading a changelog?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.

Day 1 — Build a fixture you can check answers against

• Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
• Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
• Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.

Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.

Day 2 — Joins, filters and NULL semantics

• Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
• Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
• Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.

Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.

Day 3 — Window functions and frames

• Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
• Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
• Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.

Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.

Day 4 — The four analytical query patterns

• Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
• Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
• Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.

Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.

Day 5 — Write SQL the way you will have to write it live

• Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
• Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
• Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.

Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.

Day 6 — One day for everything that is not SQL

• Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
• Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
• Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.

Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.

Day 7 — Full loop rehearsal

• Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
• Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
• Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.

Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.

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.

How do you approach collaborating with domain experts who may not have a deep data science background?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

1. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
2. Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
3. Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

What makes you a good fit for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory specifically, rather than private industry?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Handle a request for numbers supporting a decision already made

Hard · integrity · framing · stakeholder

A senior leader has already decided to sunset a plan tier and asks you for the analysis showing it is the right call. Accounts on that tier carry 6% of MRR at constant FX and have the highest licensed-seat utilisation in the book. The leader's support matters to your next review cycle, and the decision is being presented in four days. Deliver what you produce, what you decline to produce, and the exact sentence you will say in the meeting where the number appears on a slide.

Approach

1. Recognise what is being probed: whether you can find the legitimate request inside an illegitimate framing instead of either complying or refusing on principle. The generic answer promises to push back; the strong one produces something genuinely useful and states its limits in the room, without ambushing anybody.
2. Separate the decision from the justification. Sunsetting the tier may be correct for reasons the data does not hold, such as support cost, roadmap surface area or sales motion. What you decline is a one-sided document. What you produce is the case read both ways, which also happens to be more useful to the leader.
3. Build the symmetric analysis: MRR at risk at constant FX, the share of affected accounts with a plausible migration path given seats_licensed and billing_term, the recovery rate assumed for that migration and where it came from, and the downside case in which high-utilisation accounts treat the sunset as a reason to re-evaluate the vendor entirely.
4. Surface the inconvenient fact privately and early. The highest seat utilisation in the book is a retention signal, and the leader should hold it before the room does, so they can incorporate it rather than be caught by it.
5. Agree the meeting sentence in advance with the leader, so that nobody is surprised. Something to the effect that the tier is 6% of MRR and its accounts are the most heavily used in the book, and that the case for sunsetting rests on cost and focus rather than on revenue. That is true, it supports the decision on its real grounds, and it stops the deck claiming the numbers endorse it.
6. Decide your own line before you need it: what you will not put your name to, and that the route if asked anyway is your own manager rather than a confrontation in the meeting.

Follow-up

• The deck circulates with your analysis included and the downside case removed. What do you do, and by when?
• What changes if the honest analysis says the sunset is clearly the wrong call?
• How do you write the same memo when the leader is your skip-level and the meeting is tomorrow?