Interview guides · The American Mathematical Society

The American Mathematical Society Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The American Mathematical Society data scientist prep: probability, sampling distributions, and stating the assumption behind every test you run.

The 60-second brief

The Data Scientist role at The American Mathematical Society is a high-impact position that bridges the gap between complex mathematical research data and actionable organizational insights. You will be responsible for leveraging data to inform institutional strategy, optimize digital product engagement, and support the broader mission of advancing mathematical research and education.

Scope your preparation by the data you would actually touch, because the title will not tell you. A seat that lives in event logs and weekly readouts rewards fluency in aggregation and metric definitions; a seat that owns a model in production rewards fluency in train/serve skew, retraining cadence and drift monitoring. The fastest way to find out which one you are interviewing for is to ask what the team shipped last quarter and what it gets paged about.

Focus areas

Set fraud thresholds by expected cost
Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly
Decompose expected loss into PD, LGD, EAD

Overview

In this role, you will work across various departments to translate raw data into clear, narrative-driven results. Whether you are analyzing user behavior on scholarly platforms or assessing the efficacy of new initiatives, your work directly influences how The American Mathematical Society serves its global community. You will be expected to balance rigorous statistical methodology with a product-centric mindset, ensuring that every insight you deliver is both technically sound and strategically aligned.

The The American Mathematical Society interview process

The American Mathematical Society candidates report 2 rounds · ≈ 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

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

Technical Assessment

Before anything else, this round is a reading test. You are given a small schema and a question phrased in business language, and most of the difficulty sits in the gap between them. Who counts as an active user, does a refunded order still count as an order, is that date column an event time or a load time. Weak answers start typing immediately and compute something precise about the wrong population. Strong ones pin the definition in one sentence, name the column that encodes it, then write the query. On a timed assessment with nobody to tell, write the definition in a comment anyway.

What to demonstrate

Whether an ambiguous term becomes a specific column and filter before any computation happens
Whether you read the schema for keys and cardinality rather than only for column names
Whether the result answers the question at the grain it was asked at, per user or per session or per day

How to prepare

Take three metrics you already use and write down the exact filter and exact grain behind each, then practise stating one of them in a single sentence out loud
On a schema you have never seen, spend the first minute writing what one row of each table means and which key it is unique on, then predict which joins can duplicate rows
Rehearse a version where the definition changes halfway through, and edit the query you have instead of starting over

Where candidates lose points

Counting authorizations instead of weighting them, and summing amounts across currencies

Declines skew toward high-value, cross-border and card-not-present transactions, so an unweighted approval rate can sit flat while approved value falls. Merchant retry logic also turns one declined purchase into several rows, inflating the denominator by an amount that varies by merchant and by decline reason. Amounts are held in the minor unit of the transaction currency and that unit is not always two decimals, since some currencies have none and some have three, so summing amount_minor across currencies produces a figure with no interpretation at all.

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.

Accepting a metric definition without asking about the denominator

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

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

Implement accident-quarter loss ratio at twelve months development

Medium · loss ratio · development age · earned premium

fct_policy_period_monthly arrives as a stack of month-end snapshots: each row carries valuation_month alongside as_of_month, policy_id, product_line, written_premium_minor, earned_premium_minor, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor and loss_adjustment_expense_minor. Compute the accident-quarter loss ratio at exactly 12 months of development: incurred losses over earned premium, both taken from rows whose as_of_month falls in the accident quarter, read from the snapshot 12 months after that quarter closes. Report quarters that cannot reach that age as incomplete rather than dropping them.

Approach

Derive accident_quarter from as_of_month, then define the evaluation snapshot per quarter as valuation_month equal to the quarter's final month plus twelve months. Every figure in the ratio comes from that one snapshot, not from whichever snapshot happens to be newest.
Numerator is paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor over the accident quarter's rows in that snapshot. Loss adjustment expense may be included or not, but the choice applies to every quarter and is named in an output column.
Denominator is earned_premium_minor over the same rows. Written premium is booked in full at inception, so in a growing book it runs ahead of earned premium and drags the ratio down, with the error reversing when the book shrinks.
Left-join the full quarter list against available valuation months so a quarter with no 12-month snapshot yields status incomplete and a null ratio, instead of disappearing and shortening the series without saying so.
Split by product_line, since both the loss ratio level and the speed of development differ by line, and a blended series moves with mix as much as with experience.

Worked solution (30 min)

Add accident_quarter and a target_valuation column equal to the quarter end plus twelve months.
Filter rows to those where valuation_month equals the row's target_valuation, then assert each accident_quarter has exactly one distinct valuation_month left.
Aggregate incurred and earned premium by accident_quarter and product_line and take the ratio.
Reindex against the full list of accident quarters and product lines, marking rows with no matching snapshot as incomplete with a null ratio.
Recompute one quarter by hand on a five-policy subset and confirm it matches.

Expected result: One row per accident_quarter and product_line with incurred, earned_premium, loss_ratio, an lae_included flag and status in complete or incomplete. Complete quarters end twelve months before the latest valuation_month, so the four or five most recent quarters carry null ratios.

Verify it yourself

Assert exactly one distinct valuation_month per accident quarter after filtering; more than one means the snapshot join fanned out.
For a growing book, earned premium in a quarter is below written premium booked in that quarter; if it is above, either the book is shrinking or the accident-quarter derivation is wrong.
Incomplete quarters carry null ratios and never appear on the same line as complete ones in any chart.
Swapping the denominator to written premium shifts a quarter by L(W - E)/(EW), so the sign of the change is the sign of written minus earned premium in that quarter: the ratio falls where the book grew and rises where it shrank. Verify the swap per quarter against sign(W - E) rather than expecting a uniform move; a series that moves in one direction everywhere only means the book grew in every quarter.

Follow-up

The most recent complete quarter came in four points better than the one before. What do you check before calling it an improvement?
How would you estimate the 12-month figure for a quarter that is only 6 months developed, and how would you label the estimate?
Why can an expense ratio legitimately use a different denominator from the loss ratio in the same presentation?

Measure calibration of a twelve-month default probability from scratch

Hard · calibration · brier score · binning

fct_loan_application gives application_id, model_pd_12m, model_version, decision, funded_at and loan_id. fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, months_on_book, days_past_due and charge_off_flag. Define the outcome as ever 90 or more days past due, or charged off, by months_on_book = 12. Without sklearn or scipy, build an equal-count binned reliability table, the expected calibration error, the Brier score and its reliability, resolution and uncertainty components, and report the residual the binned identity leaves behind. Restrict to cohorts that have actually reached 12 months on book.

Approach

Build the label first and name the population it covers out loud: only funded loans have outcomes, so this measures calibration on the approved population. The declined region is unmeasured, and no binning scheme repairs that.
Restrict to applications whose loans have reached months_on_book = 12. A cohort observed at 8 months has a mechanically lower default rate and will read as systematic over-prediction that is really just immaturity.
Bin by equal count, deciles of model_pd_12m through a rank-based cut, not equal width. The PD distribution is heavily right-skewed, so equal-width bins put most of the mass in the first bin and leave the risky bins with single-digit counts whose observed rates mean nothing.
Per bin compute n, mean predicted, observed rate, and the binomial standard error sqrt(o(1-o)/n) so a gap can be read against noise. ECE is the count-weighted mean absolute gap between mean predicted and observed.
Compute Brier directly as the mean squared error, then reliability = sum of n_k (pbar_k - obar_k)^2 over N, resolution = sum of n_k (obar_k - obar)^2 over N, uncertainty = obar(1 - obar). Report residual = Brier - (reliability - resolution + uncertainty). That identity is exact only for discrete forecasts, so with binned continuous scores the residual is the within-bin spread of the score; a large one means the bins are too wide to support the decomposition.
Split by model_version. A mixed-version population can look well calibrated in aggregate while each version is biased in opposite directions.

Follow-up

AUC is unchanged after a population shift but the reliability curve has moved. What happened, and what do you do about it?
How would you recalibrate without retraining, and what would you check afterwards?
The top decile shows observed default well above predicted. Is that a calibration problem or a policy problem?

Simulate false alarms in a merchant chargeback monitoring rule

Medium · simulation · rare events · monitoring thresholds

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Write a query using SQL window functions to calculate a rolling 30-day average of user activity.

Medium · sql and data manipulation

Approach

State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.

Follow-up

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

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

Easy · aggregation · denominators · minor units

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

Approach

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

Worked solution (20 min)

Write the exclusion list as comments above the query: is_reversal = false, parent_auth_id is null, amount_minor > 0, transaction_currency = 'EUR'.
Build a single aggregate query over fct_payment_authorization with a half-open requested_at predicate and those four filters.
Emit attempts, approved_attempts, approval_rate_count and approval_rate_value with FILTER clauses and a numeric cast on the numerator.
Group by channel, order by approval_rate_value ascending so the worst channel is on top.

Expected result: One row per channel present in the window, with attempts and approved_attempts as integers and both rates as numerics strictly between 0 and 1. approval_rate_value is typically lower than approval_rate_count on ecommerce and moto, because declines concentrate in higher-value card-not-present traffic.

Verify it yourself

SUM(attempts) across channels equals a separate COUNT(*) run with the same four filters and no GROUP BY.
Dropping the amount_minor > 0 filter raises attempts and moves approval_rate_count while leaving approval_rate_value unchanged, which confirms the zero-amount rows were only ever affecting the count-weighted figure.
Both rates are strictly less than 1 unless a channel had no declines at all in the window.

Follow-up

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

If engagement metrics for a specific member service drop suddenly, how would you investigate the root cause?

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.
Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.

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?

What are the most important metrics to track for a subscription-based digital product?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you design a metric to measure the success of a new online mathematical journal portal?

Medium · product sense and metrics

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you determine the required sample size for a test to ensure statistical significance?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.

Follow-up

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

What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you have encountered in previous A/B tests?

Medium · a/b testing and experimentation

Approach

Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.

Follow-up

What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
What would you do if you could not randomise at all?

Size a two-week test on the ecommerce authorization path

Easy · power · mde · ratio metrics · clustering

Your team wants to test a new decline-retry policy on the ecommerce channel. The metric is the dollar-weighted authorization approval rate from fct_payment_authorization: approved amount_minor over attempted amount_minor, after collapsing retry chains within a 15-minute window on (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) and excluding is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, all converted to one reporting currency. Baseline is 87 percent on roughly 900,000 collapsed attempts in two weeks. Randomisation is by customer_id, mean six attempts per customer. Give the minimum detectable effect at 80 percent power, two-sided alpha 0.05, and say what you would change if it is too large.

Approach

Compute the count-weighted binomial anchor first, because it is the number everyone expects and you need it to show why it is wrong. With n = 450,000 attempts per arm and p = 0.87, MDE = (1.96 + 0.8416) * sqrt(2p(1-p)/n).
State that the real metric is a ratio of two sums with a random denominator, not a Bernoulli mean, so the binomial standard error is not the right one. Linearise: Var(R) is approximately Var(Y_i - R * D_i) / (n * Dbar^2), where Y_i and D_i are the approved and attempted amount totals for customer i, n is the number of customers, and Dbar is the mean attempted amount per customer.
Apply the clustering correction, since assignment is by customer and attempts within a customer are correlated. Ask for or estimate the intra-customer correlation; the design effect is 1 + (m - 1) * rho with m = 6, so rho = 0.05 gives 1.25 and inflates the MDE by sqrt(1.25) = 1.118.
Do not assume the amount-weighted variance; estimate it by bootstrapping customers from the last eight weeks of history and resampling whole customers, which captures both the skew in amount_minor and the within-customer correlation in one step.
If the MDE exceeds the plausible effect, list the levers in order of cost: extend duration (MDE falls as 1/sqrt(n)), restrict to the segment where the rule can bind at all rather than diluting across all traffic, apply CUPED on the customer's pre-period approved amount, or switch the primary to the count-weighted rate and demote the dollar-weighted rate to a secondary read.

Worked solution (20 min)

Split 900,000 collapsed attempts into 450,000 per arm and compute the binomial anchor: sqrt(2 * 0.87 * 0.13 / 450000) = sqrt(5.027e-7) = 7.090e-4; multiply by 2.8016 to get 1.99e-3.
Derive the customer count: 900,000 / 6 = 150,000 customers, 75,000 per arm, and note that this is the true sample size for inference.
Apply the design effect at rho = 0.05: 1 + 5 * 0.05 = 1.25, so the count-weighted MDE becomes 1.99e-3 * 1.118 = 2.22e-3.
State that the dollar-weighted MDE requires the linearised variance and cannot be derived from p alone; specify the customer-level bootstrap that would produce it and note it will be larger because amount_minor is right-skewed.

Expected result: Count-weighted MDE is about 0.20 percentage points unclustered and about 0.22 percentage points at a design effect of 1.25, against an 87 percent baseline (roughly 0.26 percent relative). The dollar-weighted MDE is not computable from the stated inputs and must be estimated by a customer-level bootstrap; the candidate should say so rather than quote the binomial figure for it.

Verify it yourself

z(0.975) + z(0.80) = 1.9600 + 0.8416 = 2.8016; any MDE quoted with a different multiplier is using different power or alpha than stated.
Doubling the test duration should shrink the MDE by exactly sqrt(2) = 1.414 if the traffic mix is stable; if a candidate's arithmetic does not, the formula is wrong.
Run the bootstrap on two historical periods split A/A: the bootstrap standard error of the difference times 2.8016 should reproduce the analytic MDE.
A/A splits of historical data should reject at roughly 5 percent; materially more means the variance model is understated.

Follow-up

The rule only changes behaviour on declined attempts, which are 13 percent of traffic. How does restricting the analysis population to attempts that could have triggered the rule change both the MDE and the estimand?
How would your sizing change if the split were 90/10 instead of 50/50, and why is the loss more than proportional?
Currency: the metric sums amounts converted to one reporting currency. Would you use settlement_fx_rate or a rate table pinned at test start, and what does the choice do to variance?

Portfolio delinquency improving while the loan book doubles

Easy · vintage analysis · age mix · right censoring

The blended 90-plus days-past-due rate across fct_loan_performance_monthly fell from 3.1 to 2.2 percent over two quarters while monthly funded volume roughly doubled. Credit leadership wants to know whether underwriting improved. Columns: loan_id, as_of_month_end, origination_month, months_on_book, original_principal_minor, principal_balance_minor, days_past_due, delinquency_bucket, restructured_flag, charge_off_flag, charge_off_date. Produce the view that answers the question honestly, and state in one sentence what the blended rate can and cannot tell you.

Approach

Name the mechanical floor first. A first instalment falls due roughly a month after funding, so a loan cannot reach dpd_90_plus until around its fourth month on book. Every recent origination therefore enters the denominator with a numerator that is structurally zero.
Build a vintage table: rows origination_month, columns months_on_book, cell equal to the share of that cohort whose worst days_past_due reached 90 or more, or whose charge_off_flag became true, at or before that age.
Use each loan's worst state to date rather than its current bucket, and take the pre-restructure worst state, because restructuring resets days_past_due and would otherwise read as a cure.
Compare cohorts only at equal months_on_book, and render cells beyond a cohort's current maturity as absent rather than zero, so the table cannot be misread left to right.
Decompose the blended move into an age-mix component and a within-age component, so the write-up states how much of the 0.9 point improvement is arithmetic rather than asserting it.

Follow-up

What does the diagonal of a vintage table represent, and when is reading it the right thing to do?
How would a change in charge-off timing policy show up in this table, and how would you separate it from credit quality?
Which single chart goes in front of the credit committee, and what do you say when someone asks for the blended series anyway?

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.

Tell me about a time you had to explain a complex technical finding to a non-technical stakeholder.

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

How do you handle disagreements regarding data interpretation within a team?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Turn a one-line fraud-number request into a scoped brief

Easy · scoping · metric definition · denominators

A stakeholder messages: what is our fraud rate, and is it going up? You have fct_payment_authorization, fct_card_dispute and dim_customer. At least four defensible answers exist: count-weighted or value-weighted, attributed to the transaction month or to the dispute filing month, and gross or net of recoveries and successful representments. You get one reply before someone else produces an uncaveated number. Write that reply: the clarifying questions you ask, the single default you will produce if nobody answers, and what the default excludes.

Approach

Establish the decision behind the question first, because a risk-rule change, a board number and a merchant contract negotiation need different denominators, and asking which one is not stalling.
Offer a short menu rather than an open question: a stakeholder can choose between two named options but cannot specify a denominator from scratch.
Commit to a default so the reply is useful even if nobody answers, for example net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, attributed to the requested_at month, matured months only.
State the exclusions in the same breath as the default: non-fraud dispute categories, transaction months with less than 120 days of maturity, and first-party abuse that arrives coded as consumer_dispute.
Give a delivery time for the default and a longer one for the fuller cut, so the choice between them carries a visible cost.

Follow-up

They come back wanting it by merchant for a contract negotiation. What changes in the definition and in the maturity rule?
How would you separate first-party abuse from third-party fraud in this data, and what would you refuse to conclude from the split?