As a Data Scientist at Aviva, you are at the intersection of complex actuarial science, customer behavior, and cutting-edge machine learning. Your work directly influences how one of the world’s leading insurance providers manages risk, personalizes customer experiences, and optimizes operational efficiency. You are not just building models; you are solving high-stakes business problems that impact millions of policyholders.
The role demands a balance between technical depth and business acumen. You will be expected to translate abstract data patterns into actionable insights that leadership can use to drive strategy. Whether you are working on predictive modeling for claims, customer churn analysis, or pricing optimization, your contributions will be central to maintaining Aviva’s competitive edge in a rapidly evolving digital insurance market.
Success at Aviva requires more than technical proficiency; you must be able to articulate the 'why' behind your models in a way that resonates with non-technical stakeholders.
Preparation focus
editorialNo 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
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.
Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs
Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.
SQL that silently fans out on a one-to-many join
State the grain of each table and the grain you want in the result before writing the join. Pre-aggregate the many side to the join key, or use EXISTS or a window function, and verify with a row count against COUNT(DISTINCT id) rather than trusting that the numbers look plausible.
Over-explaining the method and under-explaining the implication
Lead with the answer and what you would do about it, then give the approach when asked. Roughly one sentence of method per three of implication is the right ratio for a stakeholder-facing answer; the interviewer already knows what a regression is.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
How do you evaluate the performance of a model beyond simple accuracy?
How do you evaluate the performance of a model beyond simple accuracy?
Approach
- Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Follow-up
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
Explain the difference between bagging and boosting algorithms.
Explain the difference between bagging and boosting algorithms.
Approach
- Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
Follow-up
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
Describe the process of feature engineering for a customer lifetime va…
Describe the process of feature engineering for a customer lifetime value model.
Approach
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- 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?
Write integrity checks for the authorization and settlement lifecycle
You are given fct_payment_authorization as a pandas DataFrame with auth_id, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency and settlement_fx_rate. Write a function returning one row per integrity check with the check name, failing row count, failing share and up to five example auth_id values. Cover at least six checks, one of which reconciles captured_amount_minor against settlement_amount_minor through settlement_fx_rate. Partial capture, zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture are all legitimate and must not be flagged.
Approach
- Separate contract violations from observations before writing any code: an approved row carrying a decline_reason_code is structurally impossible, while a capture two days after requested_at is merely slow and belongs in a different severity tier.
- Express each check as a boolean mask over the whole frame and collect the masks in a dict, so the summary table is one comprehension over mask.sum() rather than a row loop.
- For the reconciliation, leave minor units before comparing: expected = captured_amount_minor / 10exponent[transaction_currency] * settlement_fx_rate * 10exponent[settlement_currency]. Build the exponent table covering zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies instead of assuming two everywhere.
- Guard the legitimate cases explicitly so each mask fires only on the genuine contradiction: captured_amount_minor below amount_minor is partial capture, amount_minor of zero on an approved row is account verification, a null captured_at on a declined row is correct.
- Sort the output by failing share times a stated severity weight, because a check firing on 0.01 percent of rows can still be the one that breaks a ledger reconciliation.
Worked solution 25 min
- Assert auth_id is unique, then build a currency exponent lookup that includes the zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies present in the data.
- Define masks for: approved with non-null decline_reason_code; declined with non-null captured_at; captured_amount_minor above amount_minor with parent_auth_id null; captured_at before requested_at; settled_at before captured_at; is_reversal true with parent_auth_id null; settlement_currency differing from transaction_currency while settlement_fx_rate is null.
- Add the exponent-aware reconciliation mask with a tolerance of one minor unit plus a small relative term.
- Assemble a frame of check_name, n_failing, pct_failing and up to five sample auth_id values, ordered by severity then share.
- Read five flagged rows per check by hand and confirm each is genuinely contradictory before reporting any counts.
Follow-up
- Which of these would you run as a blocking pipeline assertion and which as a monitored metric, and why?
- The FX check fails on 3 percent of rows, all in one settlement currency. How do you decide between a data bug and a rounding convention?
- How would you detect that a currency's minor-unit exponent is wrong in your reference table, using only the transaction data?
Collapse merchant retry chains before measuring authorization approval
Merchant retry logic turns one declined purchase into several rows in fct_payment_authorization. Collapse attempts into chains: inside a partition of (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor), consecutive rows whose requested_at gap is 15 minutes or less belong to the same chain. Return one row per chain with chain_started_at, attempt_count, amount_minor, channel, and chain_outcome set to 'approved' when any attempt in the chain was approved. Then report a 7-day rolling dollar-weighted approval rate by channel over chains rather than attempts. Exclude is_reversal rows.
Approach
- In a CTE, take LAG(requested_at) OVER (PARTITION BY card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor ORDER BY requested_at) and set is_new_chain when the previous value is null or the gap exceeds 15 minutes.
- Turn the flag into a chain identifier with SUM(is_new_chain::int) OVER (same partition, same order, rows unbounded preceding to current row), which is the standard gaps-and-islands construction.
- Aggregate to one row per chain: MIN(requested_at), COUNT(*), and BOOL_OR(auth_result = 'approved') as the chain outcome, because the purchase succeeded if any attempt in the chain did.
- Roll the chains to a daily grain per channel, then apply the rolling window as PARTITION BY channel ORDER BY chain_date RANGE BETWEEN INTERVAL '6 days' PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW. An interval-offset RANGE frame is value-based: it admits every row in the partition whose chain_date falls in the closed window [D - 6 days, D], so a channel with no chains on some dates still gets the right seven-day sums — sparsity is exactly what this construct tolerates. ROWS BETWEEN 6 PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW is the one that needs a dense grain, because it counts rows and on a sparse grain reaches back further than seven days.
- Left-join a dense date spine only if the output needs a row on days with no chains. That is a presentation requirement, not a correctness one, and it leaves every rolling sum unchanged. The RANGE frame's preconditions are that chain_date is a date or timestamp (an interval offset needs an ordering column it can be added to) and that the aggregation left one row per (channel, chain_date).
- Divide approved chain value by total chain value inside the rolling frame, never the average of daily rates, since averaging rates weights a quiet day the same as a heavy one.
Follow-up
- This definition chains off the previous attempt, so a chain can span an hour if attempts arrive every 14 minutes. When is that right, and when would you anchor the window to the first attempt instead?
- Two genuine purchases of the same amount at the same merchant, four minutes apart, collapse into one chain. How large is that error and how would you bound it?
- A channel goes dark for three days mid-window. Which of the two frame types would silently widen, and what would the resulting rate look like?
- What changes if the merchant retries with a slightly different amount to dodge a velocity rule?
Monthly delinquency roll rates with honest exiting-account denominators
From fct_loan_performance_monthly, compute month-over-month roll rates: for each as_of_month_end and delinquency_bucket, the share of loans in that bucket that are in a worse state at the following month end. Use this disposition convention and apply it without exception: charge-off is the terminal state one rank past dpd_90_plus, so a loan that charges off has rolled forward, not exited; loans that leave the book any other way — prepaid in full, sold, matured, or simply absent at the next month end — are exited. Bucket order is current, dpd_1_29, dpd_30_59, dpd_60_89, dpd_90_plus, then charged_off. Return from_month, from_bucket, accounts, rolled_forward, cured, stayed, exited and roll_rate, and show that the four dispositions sum to accounts on every row.
Approach
- Map the five delinquency_bucket values to ranks 0 through 4 in a small inline VALUES list, and reserve rank 5 for charged_off, because 'worse' is an ordering statement and enum text does not sort that way reliably. Read charge-off from charge_off_flag on the next month's row rather than from delinquency_bucket, which keeps carrying whatever delinquency value the loan held when it was written off.
- Use LEAD(as_of_month_end), LEAD(bucket_rank) and LEAD(charge_off_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id ORDER BY as_of_month_end), then verify the leading month end is exactly one month after the current one, since a loan missing a month would otherwise appear to cure or roll across a gap it never traversed.
- Classify each loan-month into exactly one of four labels off the adjacent next row, whose rank is 5 when its charge_off_flag is true and its mapped bucket rank otherwise. rolled_forward: the next rank is strictly greater. cured: strictly lower. stayed: equal. exited: there is no adjacent next row at all, which is where prepayment, sale, maturity and a gap in the monthly history land.
- Define rolled_forward as 'any strictly worse rank', not 'rank plus one'. Under normal monthly aging the only reachable worse state is the next bucket, so the two definitions coincide — except at charge-off, where a loan can go from dpd_60_89 straight to rank 5. A strict plus-one test leaves those loan-months matching no branch and breaks the exhaustiveness invariant.
- Be explicit about why charge-off is a roll rather than an exit: routed to exited, dpd_90_plus has no worse state left, so its roll_rate is identically zero by construction — arithmetic, not a credit finding. At rank 5 the dpd_90_plus row reports roll-to-loss, which is the number a loss forecast actually consumes.
- Aggregate by from_month and from_bucket and require that rolled_forward + cured + stayed + exited equals accounts on every row, which is the invariant that proves the classification is exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
Worked solution 45 min
- CTE ranks: an inline VALUES mapping of the five delinquency_bucket values to ranks 0 through 4, joined onto the monthly rows. Rank 5 is not in the map; it is assigned during classification.
- CTE leads: add LEAD(as_of_month_end), LEAD(bucket_rank) and LEAD(charge_off_flag) partitioned by loan_id ordered by as_of_month_end.
- CTE classified: derive next_rank as CASE WHEN next_charge_off_flag THEN 5 ELSE next_bucket_rank END, then a CASE expression producing exactly one label per loan-month — exited when the next month end is null or is not the current month end plus one month, otherwise rolled_forward / cured / stayed by comparing next_rank to bucket_rank.
- Aggregate to from_month and from_bucket with COUNT(*) and four FILTER counts, then compute roll_rate as rolled_forward over accounts with a numeric cast.
- Assert the exhaustiveness invariant in a final HAVING or a separate verification query before trusting any number.
Follow-up
- Project the next three months of dpd_90_plus inflow from these roll rates. What assumption does that projection make, and when does it break?
- A restructure resets days_past_due to zero. What does that do to the cure rate out of dpd_60_89, and how would you separate a real cure from a reset?
- Argue the other convention: prepayment in exited but charge-off also in exited, with roll rates reported only for the four non-terminal buckets. What does that series answer better, and what does it lose?
- The charge-off policy changed from 180 to 120 days. Show where that appears in this table and what it does to the dpd_90_plus roll rate specifically.
How would you measure the success of a new model in terms of ROI?
How would you measure the success of a new model in terms of ROI?
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.
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
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?
Explain the trade-offs between interpretability and predictive power i…
Explain the trade-offs between interpretability and predictive power in insurance models.
Approach
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
- Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Follow-up
- How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
- Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
How would you handle a highly imbalanced dataset in a fraud detection …
How would you handle a highly imbalanced dataset in a fraud detection context?
Approach
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Read a segment-sliced result with a fading first-week lift
A three-week test of an in-app credit-limit-increase offer had one pre-registered primary metric. The readout also slices 24 secondary segment-by-metric cells, of which three are significant at 0.05 with p-values 0.011, 0.028 and 0.041. The treatment effect on the primary was plus 8.1 percent in calendar week one, plus 3.4 percent in week two and plus 1.5 percent in week three. Say which claims survive, what the decay does and does not prove, and what you tell the sponsor.
Approach
- Compute what chance alone produces before interpreting any cell. With 24 tests at 0.05 the expected number of false positives is 1.2, the probability of at least one is 1 - 0.95^24 = 0.708, and the probability of three or more under an independence approximation is about 0.12. Three hits is an unremarkable outcome, not a signal.
- Apply a stated correction rather than a vibe, and be precise about which one the reported numbers can settle. Holm and Bonferroni both begin at 0.05 / 24 = 0.00208, so the smallest p-value alone decides them. Benjamini-Hochberg sorts all m p-values ascending and finds the largest k with p(k) <= k * q / m; at q = 0.10 and m = 24 the rank-k threshold k / 240 starts at 0.00417 and rises to 0.10 at k = 24, so it is a step-up test over the whole family and its verdict cannot be read off the three cells that happened to fall below 0.05. Ask for all 24 p-values, report the surviving set, which may be empty, and demote the rest to hypotheses for a future test.
- Refuse to call the decay novelty until the competing explanations are ruled out. Three things produce a falling weekly effect: a genuine novelty response from existing users that reverts, a mix shift because week three's exposed population is not week one's, and an effect that is correctly one-shot because a limit increase is taken once per customer.
- Separate them with concrete cuts. Plot the effect against time since first exposure instead of calendar week, which removes the mix shift. Compare users onboarded during the test, who never saw the previous experience and therefore cannot show novelty, against existing users. Hold back a small fraction of traffic for a long-run read.
- Fix the estimand to match the mechanism. For a one-shot offer the meaningful quantity is cumulative take-up per exposed user over a fixed horizon, not a weekly rate, and under that estimand a declining weekly rate is exactly what a working feature looks like.
- Give the sponsor one number with its interval, name the decision it supports, and list the exploratory cells separately under a heading that says they are not results.
Worked solution 25 min
- Compute the chance baseline: 0.95^24 = 0.292, so P(at least one false positive) = 0.708 and the expected count is 1.2.
- Settle the corrections the reported numbers can settle. Holm and Bonferroni both require the smallest p-value to clear 0.05 / 24 = 0.00208; 0.011 does not, so neither rejects anything, and that conclusion needs only the one number. Benjamini-Hochberg is different: with m = 24 and q = 0.10 the rank-k threshold is k / 240, which runs 0.00417, 0.00833, 0.0125 for the three reported cells (all three fail their own thresholds) but passes 0.05 at k = 13 (0.05417) and reaches 0.10 at k = 24. Because BH rejects the k smallest hypotheses whenever any p(k) clears its threshold, one of the 21 unreported p-values sitting between 0.05 and its own rank threshold would make BH reject every cell down to rank 1, the three included. Demand the full ordered vector of 24 p-values before stating a BH verdict.
- Rebuild the weekly series on time since first exposure and overlay new versus existing users, then state which of novelty, mix shift and one-shot mechanics the pattern is consistent with.
- Recompute the primary as cumulative take-up per exposed user at a fixed 21-day horizon and report that with its confidence interval as the headline.
- Write the sponsor summary: one confirmatory number, the exploratory cells listed as non-results pending the full p-value vector, and a proposed follow-up test for the single most plausible segment hypothesis.
Follow-up
- The three significant cells are all in the same segment. Does that change your reading, and how would you test whether it is a real interaction rather than three correlated slices of one population?
- Design the long-term holdback: what size, for how long, and what does it cost you in foregone treatment?
- If cumulative take-up is the estimand, what is the right horizon and how do you keep it from being chosen after seeing the data?
Approval rate rose in every band yet fell overall
Monthly application approval rate on fct_loan_application fell from 62 to 57 percent. Cut by bureau_score band, the rate rose in every band, including the null-bureau band. Columns: application_id, channel, submitted_at, requested_amount_minor, declared_annual_income_minor, bureau_score, model_pd_12m, model_version, policy_rule_hits, decision, decided_by, decision_at. The denominator is decision in ('approve','decline'). Explain the arithmetic, quantify how much of the five-point fall is mix versus within-band movement, and say what you would tell the team that owns acquisition.
Approach
- Confirm the paradox is real rather than a banding artefact. Rebuild the bands on fixed cutpoints taken from the earlier period, because quantile bands re-cut each month move with the population and can manufacture this pattern on their own.
- Compute the exact decomposition rather than describing it: within = sum of w_i0 * (r_i1 - r_i0), mix = sum of r_i0 * (w_i1 - w_i0), interaction = sum of (w_i1 - w_i0) * (r_i1 - r_i0). The three terms sum identically to the change in the blended rate, so the report can state the split.
- Attribute the weight change by cutting the same fixed bands by channel. Keep null bureau_score as its own band; a thin file is a population signal, not missing data to be imputed away.
- Check whether the new arrivals also changed the population inside a band, by comparing requested_amount_minor and declared_annual_income_minor distributions within one band across the two months.
- Deliver two numbers rather than one story: policy is looser in every band, and the funnel is being fed a different population. Those have different owners and different fixes.
Follow-up
- If the new channel is profitable at its own approval rate, is the blended fall a problem at all?
- How would you present this so that nobody reads the blended series unaccompanied again?
- What breaks if you fix the mix by reweighting to a frozen band distribution every month?
Roughly 90 minutes a night on weekdays with one longer weekend block. The plan deliberately cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that finishing one thing a night beats half-starting four.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Fix the scope and set a baseline
- Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list for everything else and keep it visible all week.
- Take one 20-minute SQL prompt and one 10-minute metric question cold, and write the single sentence that says what blocked each attempt, since that sentence is what decides which two topics get the most evenings.
- Set the week's one rule: one problem finished to completion every night, including the night you only have 40 minutes.
Deliverable: A one-page scope with an explicit not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02One query pattern, written three times
- Choose the single pattern most likely to appear (a cohort retention grid, or a funnel counted by user) and write it three times from a blank file rather than editing the previous attempt.
- On the third attempt, write the grain of every CTE as a comment before writing its body.
- Stop at 90 minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix with another hour.
Deliverable: Three independent versions of the same query plus a note on what changed between them.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Only the statistics you will be asked to defend
- Write, in under 200 words, how you would decide whether a difference between two groups is real: the test, its assumptions, and what you would switch to when an assumption fails.
- Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a difference in proportions by hand on realistic numbers, then write in one sentence what changes if the two samples are paired rather than independent.
- Write your answer to "what does a p-value mean", check it against a definition, and delete the version that describes it as the probability the hypothesis is true.
Deliverable: A 200-word written answer and one hand-computed interval you can reproduce under pressure.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04One case, and the assumptions holding it up
- Answer one product case aloud in 20 minutes with a recording running, then listen back with a pen and mark every claim you asserted without saying what it rested on: an assumed user behaviour, an assumed data source, an assumed baseline rate, an assumed grain.
- Pick the three assumptions the recommendation actually depends on, write how you would check each one against data, and say which one being wrong would flip the recommendation rather than merely weaken it.
- Write the four-step structure you used onto a card small enough to hold in working memory when you are nervous.
Deliverable: One recording, three load-bearing assumptions each with a written check, and a four-step structure card.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Your own work, timed
- Write a 90-second version and a four-minute version of your main project, and time both out loud rather than reading them.
- Prepare answers to the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
- Put one number in the first sentence and be able to say exactly where that number came from and what it excludes.
Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06The one full rehearsal, in a longer weekend block
- Run a 60-minute mock covering query work, a case and a behavioural question in a single sitting with no breaks, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
- Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
- Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.
Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Taper
- Write the 20-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning of the interview: one query you can already write from a blank file, one metric you can define out loud, and nothing you have never seen before.
- Re-read only your own notes from this week, and open no new material.
- Write down the logistics: the tool you will be asked to work in, whether lookups are allowed, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.
Deliverable: A one-page card holding the case structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Work that nobody used is a common and unflattering pattern in data careers, and interviewers probe for it. Have a story about an analysis that changed a decision, and be specific about how you got it in front of the person who could act. Also have one about work that went nowhere, with your reading of why.
Retract a published number after finding a currency bug
Two weeks ago you published an interchange and fraud analysis that summed amount_minor across fct_payment_authorization without converting currencies. Minor units are not two decimals everywhere: some currencies carry none and some carry three, so the sum has no interpretation. A pricing decision is already in flight on the back of it. You now have corrected figures. Produce the retraction: what you send, to whom, in what order, and what you change in the process so this class of error is caught next time rather than trusted next time.
Approach
- Size the error before announcing it, because saying the number is wrong without a magnitude and a direction forces every reader to assume the worst case.
- Check whether the conclusion actually flips: if the ranking that drove the pricing decision is unchanged, that belongs in the first sentence beside the correction rather than buried at the end.
- Tell the person acting on it first and directly, then the wider distribution, using the same text, so nobody learns about it secondhand.
- Write the correction as four parts: the old number, the cause in one clause, the effect on the pending decision, and the new number. Leave out self-flagellation, which makes the reader do emotional work instead of acting.
- Fix the class rather than the instance: a rule that a sum over amount_minor either groups by transaction_currency or passes through both conversion steps, exponent scaling and then a dated rate into one named reporting currency, plus a standing reconciliation of the settled subset to the settlement ledger inside each settlement_currency.
Follow-up
- The corrected figures do not change the decision. Do you still send the correction, and what does that choice signal?
- What automated check would have caught this, where would it live, and what would it cost in false alarms?
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?
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?
- 01
Two weeks ago you published an interchange and fraud analysis that summed amount_minor across fct_payment_authorization without converting currencies. Minor units are not two decimals everywhere: some currencies carry none and some carry three, so the sum has no interpretation. A pricing decision is already in flight on the back of it. You now have corrected figures. Produce the retraction: what you send, to whom, in what order, and what you change in the process so this class of error is caught next time rather than trusted next time.
- 02
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.
- 03
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.
Is this an official Aviva interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Aviva. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Aviva has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How long should I prepare for the interview?
Given the mix of technical and case-study elements, aim for at least 2–3 weeks of focused preparation, specifically refining your "past project" presentation.
PracHub interview research ↗Is the technical interview very difficult?
It is generally described as average in difficulty; it focuses more on practical application and theory than on "trick" coding questions.
PracHub interview research ↗How should I handle the case study presentation?
Keep it concise and focused on business value—show them you understand the "why" behind the numbers, not just the "how."
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.