Interview guides · Qventus

Qventus Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Qventus Data Scientist interview guide: reported rounds, practice questions with worked solutions and a 7-day prep plan.

The 60-second brief

As a Data Scientist at Qventus, you are at the intersection of advanced analytics and high-impact healthcare operations. Your work directly influences how hospitals manage patient flow, optimize resources, and improve clinical outcomes. By leveraging data to drive real-time decision-making, you help reduce operational friction in complex medical environments, ultimately allowing care teams to focus on what matters most: the patients.

When randomisation is off the table, the skill being checked is naming an identification strategy together with the assumption it rests on: parallel trends for difference-in-differences, relevance and exclusion for an instrument, overlap and conditional ignorability for matching. Say the assumption out loud and say how you would try to break it.

Focus areas

Risk-adjust outcomes before comparing providers or panels
Reconstruct drug exposure intervals from dispensing records
Separate censoring from events in time-to-event models

Overview

You will be responsible for building, deploying, and refining predictive models that solve tangible, high-stakes problems. This role requires more than just technical proficiency; it demands the ability to translate ambiguous operational challenges into structured data solutions. Because Qventus operates at the scale of large hospital systems, your contributions will have a measurable, immediate impact on operational efficiency and the quality of care provided across the network.

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

Treating clinical measurements as missing at random

A lab result, a vital sign, or a screening exists because someone ordered it, and ordering tracks suspicion of disease, visit frequency, and site workflow. Imputing the mean or dropping incomplete rows biases the population estimate and can flip the sign of an association, because the untested are systematically healthier or systematically disengaged. The presence indicator is often more predictive than the value, which is a warning sign rather than a feature win: a model that learns test ordering will not transfer to a site with different protocols.

Reading the most recent months of a claims-based series as real

Claims incur before they are reported and paid, so recent incurred months are systematically undercounted until runout completes. The lag is not uniform: pharmacy adjudicates in days, professional claims in weeks, inpatient facility claims in months. That means recent data is both too low and mix-shifted toward cheap services, which reads as a cost improvement and a utilisation drop at once. The fix is to hold the last three incurred months back or apply completion factors, and to state the paid-through date on every chart.

Averaging per-user rates to produce a population rate

Decide which quantity you want: the mean of per-user ratios and the ratio of summed numerator to summed denominator are different estimands, and heavy users dominate one but not the other. For a ratio metric, aggregate numerator and denominator separately and use the delta method for its variance.

Answering a product-sense question with a list of features

Answer with a decision and the measurement that would settle it: the hypothesis, the primary metric, the guardrails, and the result that would make you not ship. A feature brainstorm cannot be wrong, which is exactly why it earns no points.

Questions & practice

How do you validate the performance of a model when the ground truth is delayed or difficult to define?

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.

Follow-up

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

Explain the trade-offs between model interpretability and predictive accuracy in a clinical setting.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Proportion of days covered with shifted, truncated refill intervals

Hard · interval merging · adherence · path dependence

pharmacy_claim has fill_id, member_id, therapeutic_class_code, fill_date, days_supply, reversal_flag, reversed_fill_id. For one therapeutic class and a fixed 12-month window, compute proportion of days covered per member: distinct days on which a dispensed days_supply covers the day, divided by days from the member's first in-window fill through the window end. An early refill shifts coverage forward rather than stacking, and coverage is truncated at the window end. Drop both rows of every reversed pair. Return member_id, pdc, and the share at pdc >= 0.80 among members with at least 2 fills and at least 91 days of follow-up.

Approach

Remove reversals as pairs first. Drop every row with reversal_flag true, and also drop the fill_ids those rows point at through reversed_fill_id. Dropping only the flagged row leaves a dispense that was never collected in the exposure.
Walk fills per member in fill_date order carrying a cursor: start = max(fill_date, previous_end + 1 day), end = start + days_supply - 1. The shift is path dependent, so a plain cumsum over days_supply does not reproduce it. Use itertools.accumulate or a per-member loop over numpy arrays, not a row-wise apply over the whole frame.
Truncate the last interval at the window end before measuring. Without truncation a 90-day fill dispensed on the final day pushes the covered-day count past the denominator and PDC above 1.0.
Use the denominator the definition states: first in-window fill_date through window end, inclusive. Not a flat 365, and not first fill to last fill, which is a different metric that rewards early discontinuation.
Apply the eligibility filter before computing the >= 0.80 share, and report the size of that denominator next to the share. A share without its denominator is not reviewable.

Worked solution (40 min)

Filter to the therapeutic class and the window, then remove reversed pairs by dropping flagged rows and the fill_ids in reversed_fill_id.
Sort by member_id, fill_date. Per member, accumulate start = max(fill_date, prior_end + 1 day) and end = start + days_supply - 1.
Clip every interval's end at the window end and drop intervals whose start is past it.
Covered days per member = sum of (end - start + 1) over the shifted intervals, which are disjoint by construction.
Denominator = (window_end - first_fill_date).days + 1. Divide, then filter to members with >= 2 fills and denominator >= 91 and compute the share at or above 0.80.

Expected result: Per-member PDC in [0, 1], plus one share. Worked case: fills at day 0 (30 days), day 20 (30 days) and day 55 (30 days) in a 180-day denominator give intervals 0-29, 30-59 and 60-89, so 90 covered days and PDC = 0.50. Change the window to 60 days with fills at days 0, 20 and 40 and the shifted intervals truncate to 0-59, giving PDC = 1.00 while a days-supply sum would report 90/60 = 1.50.

Verify it yourself

No member has PDC above 1.0. Any value above 1.0 means intervals stacked instead of shifting, or the final interval was not truncated.
A member with a single 30-day fill at the start of a 180-day denominator scores 30/180 = 0.167 and is excluded from the share by the two-fill rule.
For one member, rebuild covered days as the size of a Python set of date ordinals over the raw fills and confirm it matches the interval arithmetic.
Shifting every fill_date forward by the same number of days changes each denominator but leaves the covered-day counts unchanged except at the truncation boundary.

Follow-up

How does PDC differ from medication possession ratio, and which of the two can exceed 1.0?
A member switches to a different ingredient inside the same therapeutic class mid-window. Should the intervals chain, and what does that do to the class-level number?
Members who die or lose coverage mid-window get a short denominator and often a high PDC. If you then compare mortality by adherence category, what bias have you built in and how do you remove it?

Count thirty-day unplanned readmissions without counting transfers

Medium · self-join · event streams · exclusions

encounter holds encounter_id, patient_id, facility_id, encounter_type, admit_ts, discharge_ts, admission_type, discharge_disposition, is_planned_admission and index_encounter_id. For inpatient stays discharged between 2025-01-01 and 2025-11-30, return the 30-day unplanned readmission rate overall and by facility_id. Exclude an index stay when is_planned_admission is TRUE or discharge_disposition is transfer_acute, expired, hospice or ama. A qualifying readmission is any unplanned inpatient admission for the same patient with admit_ts after the index discharge_ts and within 30 days of it. One stay can be both a readmission and the next index stay.

Approach

Decide between LEAD and EXISTS explicitly and say why. LEAD over the patient's admission stream gives the literal next stay, so an intervening planned admission hides a later unplanned one. The measure asks whether any unplanned admission fell in the window, which is an EXISTS or a self-join with a range predicate.
Exclude transfers at the index end before anything else. An acute-to-acute transfer closes one encounter and opens another at a different facility_id within hours, so without the transfer_acute exclusion the facilities that move the sickest patients out look the worst.
Apply the index exclusions as a set, including stays with NULL discharge_ts, which are still open and have no measurable window.
Stop the denominator early enough that every index stay had a full 30 days of observation plus encounter lag. That is why the window ends 2025-11-30 rather than at year end.
Compute the rate at stay level, not patient level, then compare the raw facility rates against an observed-over-expected framing before anyone publishes a ranking.

Follow-up

A patient has three stays ten days apart. How many index stays and how many readmissions, and why does the answer depend on the stated rule?
Which comparison would you publish across facilities, raw rate or observed over expected, and what does risk adjustment still fail to fix?
index_encounter_id already exists on the table. Would you trust it, and how would you audit it against your own logic?

Measure ninety-day primary care contact for an enrollment cohort

Easy · cohort analysis · conversion rate · date windows

member_enrollment gives span_id, member_id, product_type, effective_date and termination_date, which is NULL while a span is active. medical_claim_line gives member_id, service_start_date, procedure_code and claim_status. The cohort is members whose earliest 2025 span has effective_date in January 2025 and who stay covered at least 90 days from it. Return, by product_type, cohort size and the share with at least one paid claim line whose procedure_code is in a supplied list of evaluation-and-management office visit codes and whose service_start_date falls in the half-open window from effective_date to effective_date plus 90 days.

Approach

Build the cohort as one row per member before touching claims. Take the earliest 2025 span per member, require its effective_date in January, and require coverage to effective_date + 90 days, which means termination_date IS NULL OR termination_date >= effective_date + 89.
Use EXISTS for the numerator rather than a join. A member with four office visits must count once; joining and counting rows inflates the numerator and can push the rate above 1.
Keep the window half-open and anchored per member. Every member has a different effective_date, so a single fixed calendar window is a different metric and will not match the cohort definition.
Aggregate numerator and denominator in one pass with a conditional sum grouped by product_type, and carry the raw counts alongside the rate so the reader can see the denominator.
State the reportability rule on the output: the January cohort is not final until 90 days plus professional-claims runout have passed, so label the paid-through date.

Worked solution (15 min)

CTE first_span: per member, the 2025 span with the minimum effective_date, filtered to January effective dates.
Add the continuous-coverage requirement to that CTE using COALESCE(termination_date, DATE '9999-12-31').
Add an EXISTS subquery on medical_claim_line correlated on member_id, restricted to the code list, claim_status = 'paid', and service_start_date >= effective_date AND < effective_date + 90.
Group by product_type: COUNT(*) as cohort_size, SUM(CASE WHEN contacted THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) as contacted, and their quotient.
Print the paid-through date used, and re-run at a 30-day window to confirm the rate falls.

Expected result: One row per product_type with cohort_size, contacted_members and contact_rate = contacted_members / cohort_size, where contacted_members never exceeds cohort_size.

Verify it yourself

contact_rate lies in [0, 1] for every product_type. Above 1 proves the numerator was counted on rows rather than members.
SUM(cohort_size) across product_types equals COUNT(DISTINCT member_id) in the cohort CTE. A larger value means a member with two January spans was counted twice.
A 0-day window returns a rate at or near zero, and a 365-day window returns a rate no lower than the 90-day one.

Follow-up

A member changes plan on day 40, closing one span and opening another. Is she still in the cohort, and which product_type does she report under?
What moves if denied lines are allowed into the numerator, and which definition is right for an access metric?
How would you show this as a cumulative curve by day since effective_date instead of one 90-day point?

How would you handle class imbalance in a dataset predicting hospital discharge delays?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.

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 approach a predictive modeling problem given a limited timeframe?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.

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?

Set the decision rule when cost and denial guardrails conflict

Medium · guardrail conflict · denials · non-inferiority bound · audit sampling

Utilization management is asked to cut risk-adjusted allowed PMPM, and its lever is prior authorization and first-pass denial on advanced imaging and specialty drugs. The scorecard guardrail is first-pass denial rate from medical_claim_line (claim_status, denial_reason_code, claim_version, received_date) paired with the overturn rate on appealed denials. The two move in opposite directions by construction. Write the decision rule: which metric binds, at what pre-declared threshold, who adjudicates a breach, and what happens on breach. Do not resolve the conflict by weighting both into one score.

Approach

Say why a composite is the wrong instrument: the weights get chosen after someone has seen which way the quarter went, and any weighted sum lets a large enough cost win purchase an unbounded increase in wrong denials. A guardrail is a constraint, not a term in an objective.
Sharpen what the guardrail is actually protecting. A higher denial rate is not by itself a harm, since some denied claims should be denied. The harm is denials that should not have been made, so split first-pass denials by denial_reason_code into administratively correctable ones (eligibility, coding, missing documentation) and clinical-necessity ones, and put the bound only on the clinical group.
Fix the measurement of the guardrail before setting its threshold: count the denominator at claim_version 1 so replacements (frequency_code 7) and voids (8) are not double counted, hold the month back for 60 days of adjudication runout, and report by received_date.
Get the direction of the appeal-selection bias right. Appeals are filed on the denials the appellant already believes are wrong, by the members and providers with the staffing, literacy and dollar threshold to file at all, and an appeal usually arrives carrying documentation the first adjudication never had. The overturn rate on appealed denials therefore runs well above the wrong-denial rate across all denials, often by a multiple, and it moves with filing behaviour as much as with adjudication quality. The unbiased population estimate is a blind re-review of a random sample of all denied clinical-necessity lines each quarter, judged on the record as it stood at first adjudication; the appeal series is a fast indicator read against its own history between audits, not a second estimate of the same quantity.
Write the rule as a bound with a consequence: risk-adjusted allowed PMPM is the primary and binds only while the audited wrong-denial rate stays within a pre-declared absolute margin of its trailing four-quarter mean. Breach stops the program's expansion rather than discounting its score, and the margin is set before the quarter opens.
Name the adjudicator and the cadence: a clinical owner outside the utilization function, reviewing at the stated paid-through date, with the breach consequence written down before any result is known.

Worked solution (25 min)

Restate the guardrail metric properly: numerator is claim lines denied at first adjudication, denominator is lines received in the month counted at claim_version 1, held 60 days, broken out by denial_reason_code group.
Split denial_reason_code into administratively correctable and clinical-necessity groups and say which function owns each, since the two have different fixes and different harms.
Write the appeal-selection argument in two sentences, including which way it runs, and specify the random blind re-review: the frame it is drawn from, namely all denied clinical-necessity lines rather than appealed ones, plus sample size, who reviews, what record they are shown, blinding, and quarterly cadence.
State the bound as an absolute margin on the audited wrong-denial rate against its trailing four-quarter mean, with the margin fixed before the period.
Write the breach consequence and the named adjudicator, and note that both are recorded before results exist.

Expected result: A written rule in which risk-adjusted allowed PMPM is primary; the binding guardrail is the audited wrong-denial rate on clinical-necessity denials, estimated from a blind random re-review of all denied clinical-necessity lines, with the appeal overturn rate kept as a between-audit indicator that runs above the audited rate and never sets the bound; the bound is a pre-declared absolute margin against a trailing four-quarter mean; a clinical owner outside utilization management adjudicates; and a breach halts expansion rather than adjusting a score.

Verify it yourself

Recount the denominator with and without version dedup. If the two differ by more than a percent or two, the incumbent number has been counting resubmissions.
Re-run a closed month at two extract dates 60 days apart. A moving denial rate means the runout hold is too short.
Compare the audited wrong-denial rate to the appeal overturn rate for the same quarter. The overturn rate should be the higher of the two, usually by a multiple, because appeals are filed on the denials most likely to be wrong and often add documentation the first adjudication never saw. An audit rate at or above the overturn rate is the anomaly: check that the sample was drawn from all denied clinical-necessity lines rather than only appealed ones, and that the reviewers were blinded and shown the record as it stood at first adjudication.
Confirm the margin, the adjudicator and the consequence are all recorded with a timestamp before the period's data was available.

Follow-up

Denials rose and the overturn rate fell. Give the benign reading and the bad reading, and the one number that separates them.
What happens to your bound if the appeal filing rate per denial drops 30 percent in the same quarter?
How large a random audit sample do you need to detect a 2 percentage point rise in wrong denials off a 6 percent base, and what does that cost in clinician review hours?

Avoidable admissions fell the quarter a programme launched

Hard · mix shift · regression to the mean · reclassification · seasonality

Ambulatory care sensitive admissions per 1,000 member-years fell 18 percent in the quarter a care-management programme launched, enrolling the top 2 percent of members by prior-year spend. You have encounter, member_enrollment including a product line added mid-quarter, and medical_claim_line. Emergency visits per 1,000 rose 9 percent over the same quarter and observation stays rose as well. Produce a decomposition that states how much of the 18 percent is attributable to the programme, and state the design you would need before claiming any of it.

Approach

Rebuild the denominator from coverage spans as member-years, counting partial coverage fractionally, and recompute the rate with and without the product line that entered mid-quarter. A newly added, structurally healthier population inflates the denominator and deflates every rate built on it without a single admission being avoided.
Freeze the numerator's code list to one version. The ambulatory care sensitive list is defined on ICD-10-CM principal diagnosis codes, and in the United States that code set is updated effective October 1, so a quarter spanning that boundary can gain or lose qualifying codes. Recompute both quarters against a single code set version.
Decompose the remaining change with a Kitagawa split across product_type and prior-year risk decile: the mix term is the population getting younger or healthier, the within term is the only place a programme effect can live.
Test reclassification directly. An inpatient stay recorded as an observation stay is not an avoided admission. Compute total acute contacts per 1,000 member-years as inpatient plus observation plus emergency, and check whether that total moved at all. If it is flat while inpatient falls, care was relabelled and deflected, not prevented.
Compare to the same quarter of the prior year rather than the adjacent quarter. Several ambulatory care sensitive conditions, including heart failure decompensation and bacterial pneumonia, are strongly seasonal, so a quarter-over-quarter comparison confounds the programme with the calendar.
Address selection last and explicitly. The enrolled cohort was chosen on an extreme of prior-year spend, so it regresses toward the mean with no intervention at all, because the selecting year captured both chronic severity and one-off events. A pre-post design on this cohort will report savings every time. The minimum credible design is a concurrent comparison group selected by the same rule in the same period, or a regression discontinuity at the 2 percent threshold, with a parallel-trends check on at least four pre-periods.

Follow-up

The parallel-trends check fails on two of the four pre-periods. What do you do, without abandoning the question?
Express the effect you can defend as an absolute risk difference and a number needed to treat, with the baseline rate stated. Why is that more useful here than a relative reduction?
The programme cannot be withheld from anyone. Sketch a rollout design that still identifies an effect, and say what secular trend does to the estimate.

Suggested practice checklist

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

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

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

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

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

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

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

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

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

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

Explaining a method to someone who will not follow the maths

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

Describe a time you had to clean or handle messy, real-world data; what was your process?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
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 would you do differently if you ran that project again?
How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?

Make an honest case for your own analytical impact

Hard · impact attribution · counterfactual · self-assessment

You are asked to account for a year of your work. Constraint: you may only use measures that existed before you knew the outcome, and you must include one project that moved nothing. The portfolio contains a measure specification that changed how a contract settles, a predictive model that shipped, a self-serve dashboard, and an evaluation that killed a proposed programme. Deliverable: how you attribute value to each, which of them you claim credit for and which you do not, and the one number you would accept being judged on next year.

Approach

The probe is whether you can reason counterfactually about your own work, which is the same discipline this domain demands of you for programmes, applied where it is uncomfortable.
State the counterfactual for each item: what would have happened without you. A measure specification that changed how a contract settles has a dollar counterfactual you can compute. A dashboard's counterfactual is analyst hours, which is real and small, and attaching a revenue number to it is where these accounts usually turn into fiction.
Treat the killed programme as your strongest item and say why. Avoided spend is real value, it is attributable because the decision turned on your evaluation, and it is the one item nobody else will count on your behalf.
Report the shipped model the way you would report anyone's model: calibration in the subgroups that matter, adoption by the people it was built for, and whether any decision changed. A model that is live but ignored has zero impact, and saying so is the credibility test in this answer.
Name the failed project with its mechanism and its cost, then say what earlier signal you would watch to kill it sooner. Time to kill is a legitimate impact measure.
Choose next year's number so that it can go down. A metric that only ratchets upward is not a commitment.

Follow-up

Two other people also claim the contract measure. How do you split it?
Your model is live and used, but the decisions it informs would have been the same without it. Is that impact?
What is the strongest argument that your year had less impact than you just described?

Defend a null result against a programme sponsor

Medium · regression to the mean · difference-in-differences · stakeholder management

A care management programme enrolled the top 1 percent of members by prior-year allowed spend. The sponsor's deck shows allowed PMPM for enrollees falling 34 percent from the year before enrollment to the year after, and asks for budget to triple the programme. You rebuild the evaluation with a concurrent comparison group selected by the identical spend rule in the same period. The difference-in-differences estimate is a 3 percent reduction with a confidence interval spanning zero. Deliverable: how you present this, to whom, in what order, and what you propose next.

Approach

Name the probe: whether you can deliver a finding that costs somebody their programme without softening it into uselessness or creating an adversary who routes around you next time.
Lead with the mechanism, not the verdict. Show the comparison group's own unadjusted drop, which will be large, because a cohort selected on an extreme of the outcome regresses toward the mean whether or not anyone intervenes. The sponsor's 34 percent is mostly that, and it is a property of the selection rule rather than a criticism of their clinicians.
Give the sponsor the finding privately before it appears in any deck their leadership sees. Being surprised in a room is what turns a methods disagreement into a political one.
State the estimate with its interval and say what it rules out as well as what it fails to establish. A 3 percent point estimate whose interval crosses zero is not evidence of no effect; it is insufficient power to separate a modest effect from none, and those are different claims.
Arrive with a design rather than only an objection. Propose a regression discontinuity at the enrollment threshold if the rule is applied sharply, or a randomised rollout across the next wave of eligible members, and state the sample size needed to detect the effect size the sponsor believes in.

Follow-up

The sponsor says withholding the programme from a comparison group is unethical. What do you propose instead?
Leadership wants one number for the board next week. What do you give them?
What result would change your mind and make you believe the 34 percent?