A Data Scientist at Leonardo plays a pivotal role in transforming complex datasets into strategic insights that drive the company’s advanced technological and industrial initiatives. As a leader in aerospace, defense, and security, Leonardo relies on data-driven decision-making to optimize product performance, streamline operational efficiency, and innovate across highly technical domains. You will be at the intersection of engineering and analytics, working on projects that have tangible, real-world impact.
The role requires a blend of rigorous analytical thinking and the ability to communicate complex findings to diverse stakeholders. You will not only build models or conduct analysis but also act as a translator, helping the organization understand the "why" behind the data. Whether you are working on predictive maintenance for aerospace assets or optimizing supply chain logistics, your work will be foundational to Leonardo's mission.
The role often requires a strong commitment to working on-site, as collaboration with specialized engineering and project teams is a core component of the daily workflow.
Initial Screening
reportedData Scientist covers at least four different jobs: experimentation, product analytics, causal work on observational data, and applied modelling that ships into a system. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which of them is being hired for, and doing that diagnosis openly reads as senior rather than fussy. Ask what the last few pieces of work on the team actually were, and roughly how a week splits between querying, modelling and stakeholder time. Then say which parts of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole range is the fastest way to be caught one round later.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you can distinguish the flavours of the role and locate your own experience inside one of them honestly
- Whether you name what you have not done instead of stretching to cover every line of the posting
- Whether your hard constraints (notice period, location, work authorisation, level) surface now rather than at offer stage
How to prepare
- Map the last two years of your time into rough percentages across query writing, experiment design, modelling and stakeholder work, so a question about scope has a real answer
- Mark every responsibility in the posting as done, adjacent or new, and prepare one sentence for each adjacent item naming the closest thing you have actually built
- Decide which logistics are non-negotiable before the call so you can state them in one sentence rather than negotiating live
Technical Evaluations
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
Scenario-Based Questions
reportedAn added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
- Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
- How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact
How to prepare
- Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
- For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
- Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Recalibrating an underwriting cutoff on approved and funded applicants only
Rejected applicants have no repayment outcome, and they were rejected because the incumbent model scored them badly, so the missingness depends directly on the outcome being modelled. Reject inference by augmentation or parcelling fills the gap using the incumbent model's own assumptions, which means it can confirm those assumptions but cannot test them. The only genuinely new information about the reject region comes from bureau performance on rejects who borrowed elsewhere, or from a deliberately randomised approval band around the cutoff.
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.
Treating a non-significant result as proof of no effect
Say whether the confidence interval excludes the effect sizes you would have cared about. If it does not, the honest reading is that the test was underpowered, so report the minimum detectable effect the design could have found and what sample size would resolve it.
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.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
Simulate false alarms in a merchant chargeback monitoring rule
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?
Measure calibration of a twelve-month default probability from scratch
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.
Worked solution 45 min
- Reduce fct_loan_performance_monthly to one row per loan_id with the maximum days_past_due and any charge_off_flag over months_on_book 0 to 12, plus the maximum months_on_book observed, and keep only loans reaching 12.
- Inner-join to approved and funded applications, and record how many approved applications were dropped for immaturity and how many decisions were declines that never enter the measurement at all.
- Assign deciles with a rank-based cut on model_pd_12m, then aggregate n, mean predicted, observed rate and standard error per bin.
- Compute ECE, Brier, reliability, resolution, uncertainty and the residual, and print all six.
- Repeat the whole computation split by model_version and compare the per-version reliability against the pooled figure.
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?
Collapse retry chains and compute a dollar-weighted approval rate
fct_payment_authorization gives auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, requested_at, auth_result, is_reversal, channel and issuer_country. Two reference frames give the minor-unit exponent per currency and a daily rate to one reporting currency. Collapse retry chains first: attempts sharing card_token_id, merchant_id and amount_minor whose consecutive gaps are under 15 minutes form a single attempt, whose outcome is its last row. Exclude reversals and zero-amount verifications. Return a 7-day rolling dollar-weighted approval rate by channel and issuer_country.
Approach
- Filter before grouping: drop is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, since neither is a purchase attempt and both would otherwise sit in the denominator.
- Sort by card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor and requested_at, take the gap to the previous row within that key, mark a chain start where the gap exceeds 15 minutes or the key changes, and label chains with a cumulative sum of that flag. This is a gap rule between consecutive attempts, not a fixed clock bucket, so a chain may span more than 15 minutes in total.
- Keep each chain's terminal row by requested_at. If a retry was approved, the purchase was approved; keeping the first row reports the decline that caused the retry as the outcome.
- Convert amounts exactly once: amount_minor divided by 10 to the power of the currency exponent, multiplied by the reference rate for the authorization date. Do not reach for settlement_fx_rate, which is null on precisely the declined rows the denominator needs.
- Build the rolling window as a ratio of two rolling sums, approved value over total value, per channel and issuer_country. A rolling mean of daily ratios weights a quiet Sunday the same as a busy Friday.
Follow-up
- The count-weighted rate is flat while the dollar-weighted rate falls 80 basis points. What do you look at first?
- How would you choose the 15-minute window rather than inheriting it?
- A merchant moves from two retries to five. Which of your two rates moves, and is that a real change in approval quality?
Expect to demonstrate fluency in extracting and transforming data to s…
Expect to demonstrate fluency in extracting and transforming data to support your analysis. How do you use SQL window functions to calculate rolling averages or cumulative totals? Describe a scenario where you had to join multiple complex tables; how did you ensure data integrity? How would you optimize a query that is performing poorly on a large dataset?
Approach
- Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
- 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
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
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?
These questions test your ability to translate abstract business goals…
These questions test your ability to translate abstract business goals into measurable outcomes. How would you design a product metric to track the health of a new diagnostic tool? A key performance metric dropped by 10% overnight; how would you structure your investigation to diagnose the root cause? How do you balance long-term user value against short-term engagement metrics?
Approach
- Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
- 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
- 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?
These questions assess your scientific rigor regarding experimentation…
These questions assess your scientific rigor regarding experimentation and statistical inference. How do you determine the required sample size to reach statistical significance? What are some common experimentation pitfalls that lead to false positives? Explain the difference between a one-tailed and two-tailed test in the context of a feature release.
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.
- Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Follow-up
- How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
- What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
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?
Trailing thirty day volume per customer drops week over week
The trailing 30-day settled volume per active customer is down 7 percent against the same metric seven days earlier. Nothing shipped. You have fct_payment_authorization with requested_at, channel, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, plus dim_customer with is_current, kyc_status, onboarded_at and closed_at for the active denominator. Before anyone writes a retention narrative, decide how much of the 7 percent is calendar structure, and hand back a calendar-robust version of the comparison.
Approach
- Do the window arithmetic first. Thirty days is four whole weeks plus two days, so exactly two weekdays appear five times and the other five appear four times. Sliding the window by seven days changes which two, and card-present and card-not-present volumes differ sharply by weekday.
- Rebuild on a 28-day window, which contains exactly four of every weekday, and see how much of the 7 percent survives. That single change removes the weekday composition effect with no modelling and no assumptions.
- Count the structural events inside each window: public holidays, and the billing anchor days that recurring authorizations cluster on. A window holding one fewer month boundary loses a block of recurring volume that has nothing to do with customer behaviour.
- Decompose by channel, since recurring, card_present and ecommerce have different calendar signatures. A drop concentrated in recurring points at anchor-day placement; one spread evenly across channels does not.
- Compare year over year at a 364-day lag rather than 365, which preserves weekday alignment, and only then read the residual.
- Check the denominator on its own. Active customer counts on a trailing window carry their own calendar structure, and a ratio can move because either side moved.
Follow-up
- Which window goes on the executive dashboard, and what do you give up by choosing it?
- How would you handle a holiday that moves between years, so that a 364-day lag still misaligns it?
- If a genuine 2 percent residual survives, what is the smallest cut that tells you whether it is breadth or depth?
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 ↗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 ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
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.
State honestly what your cutoff change actually contributed
Six months ago your recommendation moved a credit cutoff, using fct_loan_application and fct_loan_performance_monthly. Since then approval rate rose four points and the 12-month vintage 90-plus rate on affected cohorts is flat. In the same window the bureau changed a score attribute, marketing shifted channel mix toward broker, and the internal funding rate moved. Your performance review asks for impact in currency terms. Give the number you would stand behind, the counterfactual it rests on, and the part of the observed movement you would not claim.
Approach
- Define the counterfactual before computing anything: the claim is not what happened after the change, it is what would have happened had the old cutoff scored the same applications, which means replaying the old threshold on the post-change population.
- Build the swap set: applications the new cutoff approves that the old one declined, applications the old one approved that the new one declines, and everyone else held out as unaffected. Only the swap groups carry your effect. Note that the swap-out group has no outcome under the new rule, because those loans were never funded, so its forgone margin must be estimated from matched pre-change approvals rather than observed.
- Price each swap group at months_on_book equal to 12 on the measure the cutoff was meant to move: interest and fees collected, minus net charge-offs, minus funding cost at the internal transfer rate.
- Strip the confounders explicitly. Cohorts affected by the bureau attribute change are either recomputed on the old attribute or excluded; channel mix is held fixed by reweighting to the pre-change mix; funding cost is charged at the rate in force each month rather than one blended average.
- State the residual you will not claim, with its size, and give a range rather than a point wherever cohorts have not yet reached 12 months on book.
Follow-up
- The swap-in group is only 6 percent of applications. How does that change the way you present the number, and to whom?
- What would you have needed to set up at launch to make this attribution clean, and why was a randomised band around the cutoff not used?
Turn a one-line fraud-number request into a scoped brief
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?
Explain an incomplete dispute chart to a non-technical executive
A finance lead is looking at first-chargeback rate by transaction month, built from fct_card_dispute joined to fct_payment_authorization on auth_id and attributed to requested_at. The last three months slope sharply down and the lead wants to announce a fraud improvement at tomorrow's review. Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, so those months are not complete. In five minutes, with no statistics vocabulary, explain why the decline is not yet evidence and say exactly what you would put on the slide instead.
Approach
- Lead with the mechanism in the listener's own terms, not with the statistical name for it: a dispute is attributed to the month the transaction happened, but it can be filed up to roughly 120 days later, so recent months contain only the disputes filed so far.
- Show completeness rather than arguing about the rate: for each transaction month, plot the share of its eventual disputes already filed, estimated from months that are fully matured. The last three months will sit visibly below 100 percent.
- Replace the chart with two artefacts: a matured series that stops 120 days back and is labelled final, and a development-factor estimate for the immature months drawn as a dashed range and labelled an estimate.
- Hand over one sentence the executive can repeat without you in the room: the recent months look better because the disputes have not arrived yet, not because fewer will arrive.
- Offer a weekly signal they can watch instead, such as the risk-score mix of approved volume or the decline-rule hit rate, and state up front what it does and does not predict.
Follow-up
- The deck ships tomorrow regardless. What exactly goes on the slide, and what wording do you insist on?
- How would you estimate the development factors, and how would you notice if they had shifted?
- 01
Six months ago your recommendation moved a credit cutoff, using fct_loan_application and fct_loan_performance_monthly. Since then approval rate rose four points and the 12-month vintage 90-plus rate on affected cohorts is flat. In the same window the bureau changed a score attribute, marketing shifted channel mix toward broker, and the internal funding rate moved. Your performance review asks for impact in currency terms. Give the number you would stand behind, the counterfactual it rests on, and the part of the observed movement you would not claim.
- 02
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.
- 03
A finance lead is looking at first-chargeback rate by transaction month, built from fct_card_dispute joined to fct_payment_authorization on auth_id and attributed to requested_at. The last three months slope sharply down and the lead wants to announce a fraud improvement at tomorrow's review. Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, so those months are not complete. In five minutes, with no statistics vocabulary, explain why the decline is not yet evidence and say exactly what you would put on the slide instead.
Is this an official Leonardo interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Leonardo. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Leonardo has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How difficult are the technical interviews?
The difficulty is generally moderate. The focus is on your ability to apply your knowledge to real-world scenarios rather than solving theoretical, "trick" problems.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the best way to prepare for the behavioral rounds?
Use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to structure your answers. Ensure your examples highlight your contributions and how you interacted with your team.
PracHub interview research ↗How long does the entire process take?
While it can vary, it typically spans a few weeks. You should expect a gap between rounds for internal evaluation.
PracHub interview research ↗Is there a heavy emphasis on machine learning?
While machine learning is a component, the primary focus for most Data Scientist roles at Leonardo remains on statistical analysis, experimentation, and business-focused metrics.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
Official role evidence, timestamped platform data and clearly labeled preparation advice.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
platform · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Data Scientist practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
platform · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
platform · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
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.
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.
Virtu Financial Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Take-home style practice for data scientists preparing for Virtu Financial: a messy dataset, a fixed time budget, and a written analysis, reviewed for whether it states its assumptions and whether a reader could reproduce your numbers.
USAA Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Data-quality drills for USAA data scientist prep: survivorship and selection bias, leakage through time-ordered features, and extreme values where provenance decides the call. A logging fault or unit slip gets corrected or dropped; a genuin