A Data Scientist at Admiral Group is a pivotal role that sits at the intersection of complex financial modeling, insurance pricing, and strategic business decision-making. Unlike roles in pure tech companies, this position is deeply integrated into the insurance lifecycle, where your models directly influence risk assessment, premium pricing, and customer lifetime value. You are not just building algorithms; you are providing the mathematical foundation that allows Admiral Group to remain competitive in a highly regulated and data-intensive market.
The work here is characterized by scale and high-stakes impact. You will frequently work with massive demographic and behavioral datasets to solve problems like optimizing insurance quotes, identifying key risk factors, and extracting actionable value from millions of customer records. The environment is intellectually rigorous, favoring candidates who can bridge the gap between advanced statistical theory and practical, business-oriented solutions. You will often find yourself collaborating with pricing analysts and IT teams to ensure your models are not only accurate but also performant and deployable within the company’s legacy infrastructure.
Success in this role requires a unique balance of technical expertise and commercial pragmatism. You must be comfortable explaining complex statistical distributions—such as the differences between normal and gamma distributions—to non-expert stakeholders, while simultaneously being ready to dive into the nuts and bolts of feature selection for sparse datasets. It is a role for those who enjoy the challenge of "translating" data into business logic, where the ability to simplify complex topics is as valued as the ability to solve them.
Numerical Reasoning Test
reportedRounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
- The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
- Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options
How to prepare
- Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
- Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
- Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.
Technical Assessments
reportedA handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
- Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
- Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.
How to prepare
- Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
- Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
- If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows
Case Studies
reportedThis round runs as a working session, so part of what it decides is whether you are useful to think with. The interviewer will interrupt: a hint that the data you assumed does not exist, a challenge to your metric, a nudge toward a branch you skipped. Treating those as interference is the common failure. Reason out loud while your thinking is still provisional so there is something to react to, and when a redirect arrives, take it instead of defending the path you had already started down.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your reasoning is audible while it is still unsettled, or only after you have privately decided
- What you do with a hint: absorb it and adjust, or argue for the original route
- Whether your clarifying questions have answers that would change your approach, as opposed to filling silence
- Whether you can be wrong about something in the middle of the case and keep moving without restarting
How to prepare
- Run practice cases with a partner instructed to interrupt twice: once to remove a data source you assumed existed, once to reject the metric you chose. Practise absorbing both without going back to the start.
- Before each practice case, write down the clarifying questions you plan to ask, then check afterwards whether any answer actually changed what you did. Drop the ones that did not.
- Explain an analysis you already know well to someone outside the field and have them stop you at every point where the reasoning jumped a step.
Cultural Fit Interviews
reportedAn extra round usually exists because something is still open after the standard loop: a skill the earlier interviews did not sample, a level decision, or two interviewers who disagreed. It is rarely a rerun of what you already did well. Ask the recruiter who you are meeting, what function they sit in, and how long the session runs. That is an ordinary scheduling question, and the answer changes what you should prepare. What separates a strong candidate here is treating the round as a fresh evaluation with its own bar, rather than assuming earlier performance carries you through or sinks you.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you can answer well on ground the earlier rounds did not cover, without leaning on what you already said to someone else
- Consistency of the facts in your stories: the same sample size, timeframe, team size and scope of your own role as in earlier conversations
- How you handle an unfamiliar format live, including whether you ask what kind of answer is wanted before producing one
How to prepare
- Ask the recruiter for the interviewer's function, the length, and whether to expect a coding surface, a discussion, or a presentation. Preparing for a 30 minute conversation with a partner team is not the same work as preparing for a 60 minute technical block.
- Write out what each earlier round actually covered, then list the two or three areas nobody probed. That gap is the most likely subject of the extra round.
- Re-read the numbers in the project stories you have already told, so a second telling does not quietly contradict the first.
Final Panel Interviews
reportedWhere a loop includes a partner from outside the data team, that conversation usually carries the same weight as the technical ones and gets the least preparation. The person opposite you will not follow a derivation and does not need to. They are working out whether having you involved would make their decisions better or slower. The failure mode is not being too technical. It is answering a question about a decision with a description of your method, leaving the translation to them. What they carry into the debrief is the sentence you handed them, not the analysis underneath it.
What to demonstrate
- Whether a statistical result arrives as something the partner could act on, with the one caveat that would change their decision kept and the rest left out
- Whether you can state what you need from their side, in their terms: instrumentation that does not exist yet, a definition they own, or a holdout they have to agree to
- Whether uncertainty is given as a range someone can plan against, rather than as hedging that invites them to ignore the result
- Whether you ask what decision is actually on the table before explaining anything
How to prepare
- Take a result you know well and write the version for someone who stops reading after one sentence, then the three-minute version, and check the short one is not the long one with the qualifications stripped out
- For a past project, list everything you asked a non-technical partner for and how you phrased it, then rewrite each ask so it names what goes unmeasured without it
- Practise saying where a result does not apply, out loud, in one sentence that a partner could repeat accurately to someone else
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Using written premium as the denominator of a loss ratio
Premium is written at inception and earned pro rata across the exposure period, so in a growing book written premium runs ahead of earned premium and the loss ratio comes out too low, with the error reversing when the book shrinks. The numerator has the mirror-image problem if it omits incurred-but-not-reported reserves, since recent accident periods then look profitable twice over. Both sides must refer to the same exposure period, which is what an accident-period view at a fixed development age enforces.
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.
Ignoring interference between units in a marketplace experiment
Ask whether one unit's treatment can change another unit's outcome through shared inventory, a matching pool, a social graph or a common budget. Where it can, randomise at a level that contains the spillover, such as region or time slice, and say explicitly what that costs you in statistical power.
Reporting a mean for a heavy-tailed metric without saying what it hides
For spend, session length or items per order, a small fraction of units carries most of the total, so the mean has a wide standard error and one account can move it. Fix the handling before you see the result: cap or winsorise at a pre-declared percentile, and report the median or the share above a threshold next to the mean. Capping changes the estimand, so say which question the capped number answers, and check how much of any difference comes from the top 0.1 percent of units.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
When would you choose a normal distribution versus a gamma distributio…
When would you choose a normal distribution versus a gamma distribution to model insurance data?
Approach
- Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
- Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
- Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
Follow-up
- What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
- How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
How would you decide whether to add a new factor to an existing machin…
How would you decide whether to add a new factor to an existing machine learning model?
Approach
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Follow-up
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
- What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
Build a vintage delinquency table without pivot or unstack
fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, origination_month, months_on_book, days_past_due, charge_off_flag and restructured_flag. Produce a DataFrame with one row per origination_month and columns for months_on_book 0 through 12, each cell holding the share of that vintage's funded loans that had ever reached 90 or more days past due, or charge-off, by that age. You may not use pivot, pivot_table, crosstab or unstack. Cells for ages a cohort has not yet reached must be NaN rather than zero.
Approach
- Define the per-row indicator as days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag, then take a cumulative maximum of it per loan ordered by months_on_book, because the metric is reached-by-age-m, not in-that-state-at-age-m.
- Deal with restructuring before the cumulative max. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a restructured loan re-enters at current and, without the cumulative maximum carrying its pre-restructure worst state, reads as a cure.
- Fix the denominator once as the count of distinct loan_id per origination_month across the whole cohort. Prepaid and charged-off loans stop producing rows, so a denominator recomputed at each age silently shrinks exactly where losses land.
- Aggregate with groupby(['origination_month','months_on_book'])['ever_90'].sum(), then pre-build the output frame indexed by sorted origination months with integer columns 0 to 12 and assign from the grouped Series by .loc on its index.
- Mask cells beyond each cohort's maximum observed months_on_book so an immature cell reads NaN instead of an artificially low rate.
Worked solution 30 min
- Sort by loan_id and months_on_book, build the ever_90 indicator, then apply groupby('loan_id')['ever_90'].cummax().
- Compute cohort_size as the distinct loan_id count per origination_month, before any filtering on age.
- Group the cumulative indicator by origination_month and months_on_book and sum it to get the numerator per cell.
- Create the output frame with the sorted origination months as index and range(0, 13) as columns, fill it from the grouped Series, and divide each row by its cohort_size.
- Compute each cohort's maximum observed months_on_book and set every cell to the right of it to NaN.
Follow-up
- Two adjacent vintages diverge at months_on_book 6. How would you separate seasoning, mix shift and a genuine credit-quality change?
- The three most recent vintages look best on this table. What do you check before saying so?
- How does the table change if charge-off policy moved from 180 to 120 days past due partway through the series?
How do you use SQL window functions to calculate running totals or mov…
How do you use SQL window functions to calculate running totals or moving averages in an insurance context?
Approach
- Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
- 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.
Follow-up
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
Explain how you would manage datasets containing significant outliers.
Explain how you would manage datasets containing significant outliers.
Approach
- Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
- State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Follow-up
- How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
What are some strategies for selecting important covariates from high-…
What are some strategies for selecting important covariates from high-dimensional, sparse datasets?
Approach
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
- Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
- State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Follow-up
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
Reconcile captured authorizations against the daily settlement total
fct_payment_authorization holds captured_amount_minor in transaction_currency, and settlement_amount_minor in settlement_currency with settlement_fx_rate applied at settlement rather than at authorization. The rate is quoted in major units of settlement_currency per major unit of transaction_currency, and dim_currency.minor_unit_exponent carries the ISO 4217 exponent for each code (0, 2 or 3 depending on the currency). Produce a daily reconciliation: for each settled_at date and settlement_currency, return settled_count, total settlement_amount_minor, and the sum of captured_amount_minor converted into settlement minor units. Flag any date and currency pair whose two totals differ by more than one minor unit per settled authorization. Do not sum amounts across currencies anywhere in the output.
Approach
- Restrict to rows that actually settled: settled_at is not null and settlement_amount_minor is not null, which is a smaller population than captured rows because a capture can still be in flight.
- Truncate settled_at to a date with an explicit time zone so the cut matches the ledger's cut, since settled_at is timestamptz and date_trunc on timestamptz silently uses the session time zone.
- Join dim_currency twice, once on transaction_currency and once on settlement_currency, so both exponents are on the row. Minor units are not a common scale: a bare captured_amount_minor * settlement_fx_rate is correct only when the two exponents are equal, and a zero-decimal currency settling into a two-decimal one is wrong by a factor of 100.
- Convert per row as ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric / POWER(10::numeric, exp_txn) * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle)) — minor units to major in the transaction currency, apply the major-per-major rate, then back to minor units in the settlement currency. The collapsed form ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle - exp_txn)) is the same expression. Round per row and then sum, not SUM(...) * an average rate, because the rate varies row by row and rounding per row is what the settlement file did.
- Group by the settlement date and settlement_currency together, never by date alone, and carry the currency into every output column name or row.
- Compare the two totals with a tolerance scaled by settled_count, since per-row rounding accumulates linearly in the number of rows rather than being a fixed constant.
Worked solution 25 min
- Filter to settled rows and derive settlement_date from settled_at with an explicit time zone.
- Join dim_currency on transaction_currency and again on settlement_currency to pick up exp_txn and exp_settle; fail the run if either is null rather than defaulting to 2.
- Aggregate by settlement_date and settlement_currency: COUNT(*), SUM(settlement_amount_minor), and SUM(ROUND(captured_amount_minor::numeric / POWER(10::numeric, exp_txn) * settlement_fx_rate * POWER(10::numeric, exp_settle))).
- Add a derived difference column and a boolean flag where ABS(difference) > settled_count.
- Order by the flag first and then by settlement_date so the exceptions surface at the top.
Follow-up
- A partial capture means captured_amount_minor is less than amount_minor. Where does that show up in this reconciliation, and where does it not?
- On one currency pair the converted total is consistently about one hundredth of the settlement total, on every date, while the other pairs reconcile. Which two columns do you inspect first, and what single change fixes it?
- The rate is documented as major-per-major. If a feed started publishing it minor-per-minor instead, which pairs would still reconcile and which would break?
- How would you present a total across currencies to a finance partner who has asked for one number?
Propose five data science projects that could drive value for Admiral …
Propose five data science projects that could drive value for Admiral Group.
Approach
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
- Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
- Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
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?
What factors are most important when pricing home insurance?
What factors are most important when pricing home insurance?
Approach
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
- Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
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?
If you double the mileage on a car, how would you expect the insurance…
If you double the mileage on a car, how would you expect the insurance premium to change, and why?
Approach
- 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.
- Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
Follow-up
- What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
- How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
Measure an underwriting automation programme without hiding cost
An operations programme aims to cut manual underwriting. The proposed metric is manual review rate: decided_by = 'manual' over applications with decision in ('approve','decline') in fct_loan_application. The team controls the referral rules recorded in policy_rule_hits. Explain how they can halve that metric in one release while making the book worse, then design the readout that catches it: primary metric, the cuts it must always be reported in, and the guardrails. Say what evidence you would require before declaring a batch of referrals safe to auto-decide.
Approach
- Name the exploit precisely. Referrals can be converted to automatic declines by a rule change, which removes them from the numerator at no operational cost while they stay in the denominator, so the rate falls and applicants a human would have approved are rejected instead. Auto-approving the same population moves the metric identically with the mirror-image failure mode.
- Refuse the bare rate as a primary. Make it conditional on outcomes: manual review rate measured at a held-constant approval rate within each model_pd_12m band, so a reduction is creditable only when the decisions themselves did not move.
- Require fixed cuts on every report: by model_pd_12m band and by the rule identifier inside policy_rule_hits. A single blended operations number cannot be decomposed after the fact, and the decomposition is the entire diagnostic.
- Set guardrails on the things the exploit disturbs: approval rate within each score band, the override rate where manual decisions disagree with the automated recommendation, and the vintage 90+ rate at months_on_book = 12 for the newly auto-decided population against the referrals of the prior regime.
- Fix the evidence bar for retiring a referral rule: a shadow period where the rule fires and the case is still worked manually, recording what the automation would have decided, what the human decided, and, for the disagreement group alone, the realised performance. Agreement on the easy majority establishes nothing about the disputed minority.
- State the conflict honestly rather than designing around it. The referral population exists because the model is least certain there, so automating it trades loss for cost by construction, and the readout's job is to price that trade rather than to make it disappear.
Worked solution 30 min
- Compute manual review rate for a recent month overall, then by model_pd_12m band, then by rule identifier extracted from policy_rule_hits.
- For each rule, compute the approve share and decline share of the applications it touches, so the rules whose removal would actually change decisions are identified before anyone proposes removing them.
- Simulate the exploit: reclassify one high-volume referral rule's applications as automatic declines, then recompute the blended rate and the band-level approval rates side by side.
- Write the readout spec: the primary with its conditioning, the two mandatory cuts, the three guardrails, and the shadow-period evidence bar.
Follow-up
- The override rate falls to near zero after the change. Is that good?
- How long must the shadow period run, given the outcome matures at twelve months on book?
- The rule fires on 200 applications a month. What can and cannot be established at that volume?
Manual review rate doubles on the day two changes ship
Manual review rate on fct_loan_application, defined as decided_by = 'manual' over decisions in ('approve','decline'), stepped from 9 to 18 percent on a single day. That day a new model_version went live, and the same release changed which referral paths are recorded as manual. Columns: submitted_at, channel, bureau_score, model_pd_12m, model_version, policy_rule_hits, decision, decided_by, decision_at. Attribute the step across definition, model and population, with a number against each.
Approach
- Establish the shape before the cause. A definition or code change produces a step at the deploy timestamp; a population change produces a ramp. Plot at hourly granularity either side of the release and read which one this is.
- Dual-run the definition. Recompute the metric under both the old and the new recording rules across several months of history. If the historical series under the new rule sits near 18 percent throughout, that part of the step is definitional and should be restated, not investigated.
- Hold the model constant and decompose the residual by policy_rule_hits identifier. A referral rule keyed to a score threshold shows its own step, and naming the rule is what makes the finding actionable to the policy owner.
- Test the score, not the applicants. Compare model_pd_12m distributions by model_version on the same applications where shadow scores exist; otherwise compare adjacent weeks with a population stability index, treating the customary 0.1 and 0.25 marks as heuristics rather than tests, and assess calibration separately from ranking.
- Test the applicants, not the score. Compare channel mix, bureau_score distribution and null-bureau share across the boundary. If those are stable, population is not a driver and should be reported as approximately zero rather than left unquantified.
- Deliver three components that sum to the observed step, each with the team that owns it.
Follow-up
- If the new model is better calibrated, is a higher referral rate the correct outcome or a threshold nobody retuned?
- How would you have caught the recording change before it reached the dashboard?
- What is the swap set here, and which swap group would you inspect first?
For someone who can already write the query and train the model but stalls when asked what to measure or whether a change is worth making. Metric definition and case structure come first; the technical work is kept as maintenance rather than the centre of the week.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Metric anatomy
- For three products you use daily, write one primary metric, two input metrics that plausibly move it, and one guardrail that would catch a cheap way of moving the primary at the cost of the product.
- For one of them, specify the metric precisely enough that two analysts would return the same number: numerator, denominator, unit of observation, time window, and how returning and deleted accounts are treated.
- Pick a ratio metric and write what happens to it when the denominator shrinks for reasons unrelated to the numerator, with a concrete example of that happening.
Deliverable: A one-page metric tree for one product, with the primary metric written as an unambiguous spec.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Diagnosing a drop without guessing
- Take the prompt "weekly active users fell 8 percent week over week" and write the segmentation plan before proposing any cause: platform, region, tenure cohort, acquisition channel, and whether the movement sits in the numerator or in a changed denominator.
- List the instrumentation failures that manufacture fake drops (a client release that stopped firing an event, a bot filter change, a shifted date boundary or timezone) and write the query that rules out each one.
- Rehearse stating the boring explanations first, seasonality and day-of-week composition, before reaching for a product cause.
Deliverable: A drop-diagnosis checklist short enough to recite from memory in under a minute.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Should we build it
- Take a feature idea and write it as a bet: what you believe is true, what would have to be true for it to pay off, the metric that would confirm it, and the effect size that would justify the engineering cost.
- Size the opportunity top-down and bottom-up, then reconcile the two numbers in writing instead of quoting whichever is friendlier.
- Write the counter-metric that would make you kill the feature even if it wins on the primary metric.
Deliverable: A one-page product memo ending in a decision rather than a list of considerations.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04The places aggregate numbers lie
- Construct a Simpson's paradox numerically: two segments where the treatment wins within each segment yet loses overall, and identify the shift in segment weights that causes it.
- Take a heavy right-tailed quantity such as revenue per user and write why the mean is the wrong summary, which percentile you would report instead, and what a moving mean with a stable median tells you.
- Write your definition of a session for the product from day one, then name two real behaviours it misclassifies.
Deliverable: One page holding a worked Simpson's paradox table and a session definition with its two known failure cases.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Technical maintenance, aimed at metrics
- Solve four timed SQL prompts that all end in a ratio metric, so the question of grain stays live in every answer.
- Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a proportion on a small sample, and state why the normal approximation is unreliable when either np or n(1 minus p) falls below roughly 10, along with which interval you would use instead.
- Take one metric from your day-one tree, write the query that computes it correctly, then write the query that computes it wrong in the most plausible way and explain how you would notice.
Deliverable: Four solved prompts plus a matched correct and plausible-wrong query for one metric.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Turning engineering work into data science stories
- Write three project stories as situation, decision, trade-off, outcome, each carrying one number and one thing you got wrong.
- For the story you will lead with, prepare an answer to "what would you do differently" that names a decision you made, not a constraint you were handed.
- Practise the sentence that reframes a systems project as a question project: the question the work answered, ahead of the pipeline it shipped.
Deliverable: Three written stories with the lead story delivered aloud and timed under four minutes.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Mock case and gap list
- Run a 40-minute mock case with someone playing a product manager who pushes back on your metric choice, and record it.
- Listen back and mark every moment you proposed a solution before the success metric existed.
- Rewrite those moments as the question you should have asked, and rehearse the first 90 seconds of the case until scoping comes before solving.
Deliverable: A recorded case plus a rewritten opening 90 seconds.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.
Describe a data science project you are particularly proud of and your…
Describe a data science project you are particularly proud of and your role in its success.
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
- Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
Disagree with a product manager over an approval-rate target
A product manager proposes a quarterly goal of raising card authorization approval rate by 150 basis points, measured as approved authorizations divided by all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. You believe that metric can be hit with no customer benefit, because merchant retry chains, zero-amount verification authorizations, incremental authorizations and reversals all sit in the denominator, and declines skew toward high-value cross-border ecommerce. You support the underlying goal. In one working session, change the metric without killing the initiative, and name the guardrail you would accept.
Approach
- Separate the goal from the metric out loud and agree with the goal first, so the disagreement stays narrow and technical rather than becoming positional.
- Demonstrate the failure rather than asserting it: compute the proposed metric and the dollar-weighted collapsed version over the same recent window, and find a period where they moved in opposite directions.
- Propose the replacement precisely: sum of approved amount_minor over sum of attempted amount_minor, after collapsing retries to one attempt per card_token_id, merchant_id and amount_minor within a 15-minute window, excluding is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, with everything converted to one reporting currency before summing.
- Attach the guardrail that makes the target honest: matured first-chargeback rate and net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months carrying at least 120 days of maturity.
- Give the product manager something back: the replacement metric cuts cleanly by channel and issuer_country, which makes a roadmap of merchant-specific and authentication fixes legible in a way the blended rate never was.
Follow-up
- How do you identify a retry chain when the merchant varies the amount slightly between attempts?
- The product manager wants a weekly read on the guardrail. What is the earliest defensible signal, and how do you label it?
Defend a vintage finding that contradicts the portfolio dashboard
The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.
Approach
- Reconcile before you contradict: show that aggregating your vintage table along the calendar diagonal reproduces the published blended series, so the disagreement is about age mix rather than about data quality.
- Make the mechanism arithmetic rather than rhetorical: a loan cannot reach 90 days past due before it is 90 days old, so rapid origination growth shifts weight onto young months-on-book where the rate is structurally near zero.
- Show every vintage rather than a selected pair, all indexed at months_on_book equal to 12, with cohort sizes printed beside each curve so nobody can claim the divergence rests on a thin cohort.
- Handle restructuring explicitly, because restructured_flag resets days_past_due: count each loan on its worst pre-restructure state, or recent vintages will look better than they are.
- Close on the decision rather than the chart: state what the divergence implies for the cutoff or the channel mix, and state in advance what evidence would make you withdraw the claim.
Follow-up
- Two cohorts differ at month 12. How do you separate a seasoning effect from a genuine credit-quality effect?
- Someone argues the recent vintages are simply a broker-channel mix shift. How do you test that, and what would confirm it?
- 01
Describe a data science project you are particularly proud of and your role in its success.
- 02
A product manager proposes a quarterly goal of raising card authorization approval rate by 150 basis points, measured as approved authorizations divided by all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. You believe that metric can be hit with no customer benefit, because merchant retry chains, zero-amount verification authorizations, incremental authorizations and reversals all sit in the denominator, and declines skew toward high-value cross-border ecommerce. You support the underlying goal. In one working session, change the metric without killing the initiative, and name the guardrail you would accept.
- 03
The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.
Is this an official Admiral Group interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Admiral Group. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Admiral Group has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How much time should I spend preparing for the numerical test?
Dedicate significant time to practicing mental math and quick logic problems. The test is time-pressured, and the goal is to be comfortable performing basic calculations under stress.
PracHub interview research ↗Is it okay to say "I don't know" during a technical interview?
Yes, but follow it up with how you would find the answer. The interviewers are testing your problem-solving process and your honesty; they prefer a candidate who can reason through a solution rather than one who guesses blindly.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the culture like in the data science team?
The culture is professional and collaborative. You will be working with people who value logic and evidence-based decision-making. Expect a team that is focused on results and clear communication.
PracHub interview research ↗How do I stand out during the case study round?
Focus on the "why" behind your decisions. Don't just pick a model; explain why that model is appropriate for the business goal and how you would mitigate its risks.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Data Scientist practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
1st Central Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Causal-inference exercises for 1st Central data scientist prep: difference-in-differences, matching, instrumental variables, and knowing when observational data simply cannot answer the question asked.
3M Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for 3M data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.
ValueLabs Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Causal-inference exercises for ValueLabs data scientist prep: difference-in-differences, matching, instrumental variables, and knowing when observational data simply cannot answer the question asked.
vConstruct Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for vConstruct data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.