As a Data Scientist at LexisNexis Risk Solutions, you serve as a pivotal force in transforming vast troves of public, industry-specific, and proprietary data into trusted, production-ready risk assessment insights. Your day-to-day work directly impacts core business verticals—such as insurance risk solutions—by helping enterprise customers evaluate and predict risk, enhance operational efficiency, and drive better data-driven decisions across entire lifecycles. You will bridge the gap between abstract mathematical modeling and real-world commercial value, creating decision tools that protect businesses and consumers alike.
This role is intentionally AI-forward and hands-on, requiring you to independently execute complex analytical projects from conception to production deployment. You will collaborate closely with product management, software engineering, and platform teams to design, build, and scale predictive models, machine learning pipelines, and advanced analytics solutions. Whether you are optimizing fraud detection frameworks, refining insurance pricing models, or integrating retrieval-augmented workflows, your contributions directly shape how major industries assess uncertainty and manage exposure.
Expect a high-caliber, intellectually stimulating environment where technical rigor meets immense data scale. While the expectations are demanding, you will be supported by collaborative multidisciplinary teams that value clean code, scalable architecture, and clear communication. Success in this role requires a balanced blend of statistical intuition, production engineering standards, and product sense, allowing you to translate ambiguous business challenges into robust, measurable solutions.
Phone Screening
reportedWhoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.
What to demonstrate
- Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
- Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
- Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed
How to prepare
- Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
- Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
- Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands
Technical Assessments
reportedThis round decides whether someone can hand you a schema and a question and trust the number that comes back. Correctness under a clock is the bar, not clever syntax. The habit that separates strong from weak answers is checking the grain: after every join, know how many rows you expect and whether the count moved. Most wrong answers in this format are not wrong logic, they are a fan-out from a key that turned out not to be unique, or a filter applied before an aggregate when it belonged after. Say what you expect before you run it.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your row counts survive each join, and whether you notice on your own when they do not
- Deliberate handling of rows that fail to match, including whether the question needs an inner join or a left join with the non-matches kept and counted
- Whether NULLs are treated on purpose, given that a NULL compares equal to nothing and that COUNT of a column skips it
- Reaching a defensible answer inside the window instead of a refined one after it
How to prepare
- Take a two-table schema, write a join that fans out on purpose, then fix it by collapsing the many-side to one row per key before joining. Repeat until the fix is reflex rather than recall.
- Write a funnel as one query and print the distinct user count at each stage, then confirm each stage is a subset of the one above it rather than assuming it
- Do a few timed runs in a plain text box with no autocomplete and no formatter, since assessment editors often have neither
Multiple Interview Rounds
reportedBecause the format is not fixed, prepare the reasoning rather than the ritual. Nearly every version of this round draws on the same underlying material: a design you can defend, a metric you can define exactly, an analysis whose assumptions you can state out loud. Only the wrapper changes, whether that is a take-home, a live case, a deep dive on past work, or a rough estimate on a whiteboard. Answers rehearsed to fit one shape stall the moment the shape differs. Practise naming the assumption behind a number, then saying how much the conclusion moves if that assumption is wrong.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your justification for a method survives the question 'why not the simpler thing', including when the simpler thing would have worked
- Precision under pressure: what exactly counts as an active user, a conversion or a success, over what window, with what exclusions
- Whether you carry an argument through to a recommendation instead of stopping at a list of tradeoffs
How to prepare
- For each project you plan to mention, write the metric definition in one sentence: numerator, denominator, time window, exclusions. Say it out loud once, because vagueness shows up in speech before it shows up on paper.
- Rehearse the same project at three lengths: two minutes, ten minutes, and a deep dive on one technical decision. Cutting live is harder than it sounds.
- For your headline result, write down what would have had to be true for it to be wrong, and how you ruled that out.
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Counting on an identity key that changes underneath the metric
visitor_id is per browser and per device, and it resets on cookie clearance, private browsing and platform privacy changes, so the distinct-visitor count drifts upward for reasons unrelated to reach. Any rate with visitors in the denominator therefore decays over time even when behaviour is constant, and any rate with visitors in the numerator inflates. The stitching at signup makes it worse in both directions: a user who signed up on mobile and returns on desktop is two visitors and one user, while a shared device is one visitor and several users. Decide which key each metric is counted on, write it into the definition, and when comparing a period before and after a platform privacy change, expect a level shift in every visitor-keyed metric and do not attribute it to the product.
Comparing cohort retention curves of different maturities, or building the curve from users who are still present
A cohort four weeks old has no week-8 value, so an average taken across cohorts silently drops young cohorts from the later columns and keeps them in the earlier ones. The curve then bends upward at the tail, and the reading that 'retention is improving over time' is an artefact of which cohorts survived to be measured. The same error appears in the denominator when retention is computed over users active in the current period rather than over the full original cohort, which conditions on survival and guarantees a flattering number. The fix is a triangle: fix the cohort at signup, bound every window on both sides, and only compare cells where every cohort has had the full elapsed time, publishing the rest as blank rather than as a partial average.
Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised
Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.
Reading a dozen metrics with no multiplicity control
Nominate one primary metric before launch and treat the rest as guardrails or exploratory, with Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg applied when you intend to make claims from them. Twenty independent tests at 0.05 under the null produce at least one false positive about 64 percent of the time.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
Simulate the false positive cost of repeated peeking
Quantify the cost of peeking. Simulate a two-arm experiment with no true effect: each arm accumulates Bernoulli conversions at a base rate of 0.10 up to 40,000 units per arm. Run a two-sided two-proportion z-test at alpha 0.05 at ten equally spaced interim points, and record whether the test ever crossed. Report the false positive rate over at least 10,000 replications, alongside the rate for a single look at the final sample only. Use a fixed seed and report a Monte Carlo standard error on both figures.
Approach
- Generate each replication as two cumulative sums of Bernoulli draws, then read the interim points off the cumulative arrays. Regenerating data at each look would make the looks independent, which destroys exactly the dependence the exercise is about: later looks share data with earlier ones.
- Use the pooled-variance two-proportion z: p_pool = (x1+x2)/(n1+n2), z = (p1-p2) / sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n1 + 1/n2)), reject when |z| > 1.96. State that the normal approximation is fine here because the smallest look has roughly 400 expected conversions per arm.
- Vectorise across replications rather than looping: draw a (reps, n) array of uniforms, threshold at 0.10, cumsum along axis 1 and slice the ten look indices. A per-replication loop at 10,000 by 40,000 is unnecessarily slow.
- Record the any-cross indicator per replication, take the mean, and compute the Monte Carlo standard error as sqrt(p*(1-p)/reps) so the reported figure comes with its own precision.
- Report the single-look rate in the same run as a control. If it does not land near 0.05, the bug is in the test statistic and not in the peeking argument.
Follow-up
- Re-run with 40 looks instead of 10. Why does the curve flatten rather than continue rising linearly?
- Among the replications that crossed, what is the mean observed lift, and why is it not zero?
- What does an O'Brien-Fleming boundary or an always-valid confidence sequence change about this simulation, and what does each cost in power?
Rebuild per-visitor ordering without groupby convenience methods
You have a DataFrame of 2 million fct_event rows with visitor_id, occurred_at_utc and event_id, unsorted and containing duplicate timestamps within a visitor. Produce three new columns: event_rank, the 1-based position of the event within its visitor ordered by occurred_at_utc; seconds_since_prev, the gap to that visitor's previous event, NULL for the first; and is_first_for_visitor. You may use sort_values, shift, cumsum, numpy and boolean masking. You may not use groupby.transform, groupby.apply, groupby.cumcount, groupby.rank or merge_asof. Break timestamp ties on event_id.
Approach
- Sort once by ['visitor_id', 'occurred_at_utc', 'event_id'] and reset the index. The whole exercise reduces to row arithmetic on a sorted frame, and the tiebreak on event_id is what makes the result reproducible across runs.
- Mark visitor boundaries with is_first = df['visitor_id'].ne(df['visitor_id'].shift()). This is the single fact every other column derives from.
- Compute seconds_since_prev as the diff of the timestamp column, then overwrite it with NaT/NaN wherever is_first is True. The shift crosses the boundary between visitors and will otherwise hand the first row of each visitor the last event of the previous one.
- Build event_rank from a running counter that resets at boundaries: take a global cumulative position (np.arange(len(df))) and subtract, per row, the global position at which that visitor started. Get the start position by forward-filling the positions where is_first is True, which is a cumsum-free reset and is O(n).
- Verify against the forbidden method once, as a test rather than as the implementation, and confirm the two agree on every row.
Follow-up
- The frame does not fit in memory. How does your approach change if you can only process one visitor-partitioned chunk at a time?
- occurred_at_utc is client-supplied and sometimes runs backwards within a visitor. Does your seconds_since_prev go negative, and should it?
- How would you extend this to reset the counter at every change of surface as well as visitor?
Permutation test for a difference in conversion rates
Write a two-sided permutation test from scratch for a difference in conversion rates, using no scipy hypothesis function. Input: a DataFrame with unit_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}, one row per randomisation unit. Compute the observed difference in proportions, then build the null distribution by reshuffling the variant labels while holding each arm's size fixed. Report the p-value as (1 + the count of permuted statistics at least as extreme in absolute value) / (B + 1) with B at least 10,000, and return the permutation distribution.
Approach
- Name the null being tested: the sharp null that each unit's outcome is the same under either label. That is what licenses permuting labels, and it is stronger than the null of equal means, which matters when someone asks whether the test is valid under unequal variances.
- Extract converted to a single numpy array of 0s and 1s and record n_treatment. Every permutation is then just a reshuffle of one array, and the treatment mean is the mean of the first n_treatment entries of the shuffled array.
- Vectorise the B permutations with rng.permuted on a tiled 2-D array, or with argsort of a (B, n) random matrix. A Python loop calling np.random.shuffle B times is correct but roughly an order of magnitude slower and often runs past the time limit.
- Use the +1 correction in both numerator and denominator. Without it a p-value of exactly 0 is reportable, which is false: the observed labelling is itself one of the permutations, so the smallest attainable p-value is 1/(B+1).
- Compare the resulting p-value against a two-proportion z-test as a sanity check. At these sample sizes they should agree closely; a large divergence means the statistic or the shuffle is wrong, not that the permutation test found something subtle.
Worked solution 25 min
- y = df['converted'].to_numpy(); n_t = (df['variant'] == 'treatment').sum(); obs = y[treat_mask].mean() - y[~treat_mask].mean().
- Build the null: for B draws, shuffle y and take the mean of the first n_t entries minus the mean of the rest.
- p = (1 + (np.abs(null) >= abs(obs) - 1e-12).sum()) / (B + 1), with the small tolerance so exact ties count as at least as extreme.
- Return obs, p and the null array; plot or describe the null to confirm it is centred at 0.
Follow-up
- The arms are 200 and 20,000 units. Does the permutation test stay valid, and what happens to its resolution at B = 10,000?
- Give a 95 percent confidence interval for the difference. Can you get it from this permutation distribution, and if not, what would you run instead?
- The randomisation unit is user_id but the outcome is per session. What breaks, and what is the fix?
Find reactivation gaps in account paid-period history
fct_subscription_period holds account_id, subscription_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, period_status and change_reason. A mid-period plan or seat change closes one row and opens another, so a single continuous paid tenure is often many rows, and an account may hold two overlapping subscriptions. Collapse rows with period_status in ('active','past_due') into continuous tenures per account, treating gaps of three days or less as continuous. Return account_id, tenure_start, tenure_end, and for every tenure after the first, the gap in days that preceded it.
Approach
- Filter to paid rows only: period_status IN ('active','past_due'). Trialing periods are not tenure, and including them turns every trial that never converted into a one-period tenure followed by a fake churn.
- Order by period_start_utc and take a running maximum of all prior ends: MAX(period_end_utc) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY period_start_utc, period_end_utc, subscription_id ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND 1 PRECEDING). Those three columns are the only stable ordering this schema exposes, so check first that they are unique within an account; if rows tie on all three, the island numbering is order-dependent between runs and you need a real row key before the result is reproducible.
- LAG on its own is wrong here because with overlapping or nested periods the immediately preceding row by start date is not the one that ends latest, so the running maximum is the part that cannot be shortcut.
- Flag a new island when prior_max_end IS NULL OR period_start_utc > prior_max_end + interval '3 days', then number islands with a running SUM of the flag over the same ordering and an explicit ROWS frame.
- Group to (account_id, island) taking MIN(period_start_utc) and MAX(period_end_utc), then LAG(tenure_end) OVER (PARTITION BY account_id ORDER BY tenure_start) to compute the preceding gap in days for every tenure after the first.
- Sanity-check with change_reason, which is the only lineage this schema carries: list its distinct values first, then confirm that rows recording a plan or seat change sit inside a tenure rather than opening one, and that every tenure after the first opens on a row whose reason records a restart rather than an ordinary renewal. Do not reconcile against a churn timestamp on dim_account, which this schema does not define; and where such a column does exist, a cancellation timestamp records when the request was made and routinely sits weeks before the period it ends.
Follow-up
- Why three days of grace? What do 0 and 30 days each do to the count of accounts classed as reactivated?
- An account runs two concurrent subscriptions for different teams. One tenure or two, and what does the revenue reader expect?
- How would you turn these tenures into a monthly gross logo churn series without double-counting an account that churned and returned in the same month?
Pair flow starts to completions within a thirty-minute bound
fct_event holds event_id, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, surface, app_version. Using only rows where event_name is 'flow_started', 'flow_completed' or 'error_shown', compute the daily core-flow completion rate by surface and app_version. Numerator: distinct flow_instance_id whose flow_completed occurs within 30 minutes of its flow_started with no error_shown for the same instance in between. Denominator: distinct flow_instance_id with a flow_started that day. Report rows with a NULL flow_instance_id as a separate coverage count, not inside either side.
Approach
- Collapse the stream to one row per flow_instance_id using conditional aggregation: MIN(occurred_at_utc) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_started') AS started, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_completed') AS completed, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'error_shown') AS first_error. This makes the 'first' semantics explicit and avoids a self-join entirely.
- Apply the predicates on that single row: completed IS NOT NULL AND completed <= started + interval '30 minutes' AND (first_error IS NULL OR first_error > completed). Note the last clause encodes 'in between' literally, so an error surfaced after a successful completion does not disqualify the attempt.
- Bucket by started::date, surface and app_version. Splitting by app_version is not decoration: a completion-rate regression is nearly always confined to one client build, and a pooled daily rate hides it behind the installed base.
- Count NULL flow_instance_id rows as a separate coverage figure. They cannot be attributed to an attempt at all, so they belong in neither numerator nor denominator, and their share tells you how much of the rate is unmeasurable.
- For any roll-up to week or to all surfaces, re-sum the numerator and denominator rather than averaging the daily rates.
Worked solution 25 min
- Write the per-instance collapse CTE and confirm COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id).
- Add the three predicates one at a time, recording how many instances each removes.
- Aggregate by day, surface and app_version with FILTER on the clean-completion flag.
- Compute the NULL-instance coverage count as a separate select and report it alongside.
- Pick the worst day-surface-version cell and pull ten raw instances to confirm the disqualification reason.
Follow-up
- occurred_at_utc is client-supplied. What do you do with an instance whose completion timestamp precedes its start?
- flow_instance_id is missing on 4 percent of starts for one app_version. What can and cannot you conclude about that build?
- An instance starts at 23:55 and completes at 00:04. Which day owns it, and what does the alternative do to the daily series?
A completion rate the owning team can move without fixing anything
A team's target is core-flow completion rate: distinct fct_event.flow_instance_id with a 'flow_completed' event within 30 minutes of its 'flow_started' and no 'error_shown' carrying the same flow_instance_id in between, over distinct flow_instance_id with a 'flow_started' in the window, split by surface and app_version. The same team owns the client that emits those events and the tracking plan that defines them. List the ways this rate rises without any user completing more flows, then redefine the metric and its guardrails so those routes are closed. Deliverable: the hardened definition.
Approach
- Work the emission side first, because that is what the team controls: delay minting flow_started until after the first screen so the highest-dropping attempts leave the denominator; stop emitting or rename error_shown; mint a fresh flow_instance_id on each retry so one failed attempt becomes several attempts whose last one completes; move flow_completed earlier in the flow.
- Sort those moves by where they are visible. None of them shows in the rate itself; three of them show only in volume, which is why the denominator has to be published on the same chart as the rate.
- Re-anchor the numerator on something outside the flow's own instrumentation: require a downstream is_core_action = TRUE event for the same user_id within 30 minutes of flow_completed, so a completion only counts when it produced the thing the flow exists to produce.
- Add the guardrail that catches the retry route specifically: mean and p90 flow_instance_id per user per day, with the rule written down that a rising completion rate alongside rising attempts per user is a regression and not a win.
- Make definition changes visible instead of forbidden: stamp a tracking-plan version on the series and re-base the history when event semantics or the 30-minute window change, rather than splicing two definitions into one line.
Worked solution 25 min
- Enumerate at least four emission-side moves and mark for each whether it shows in the rate or only in volume.
- Pin the denominator: publish flow_started per 1,000 sessions and per distinct user beside the rate.
- Rewrite the numerator to require a downstream core action for the same user within 30 minutes.
- Add the attempts-per-user guardrail with its interpretation rule stated as a sentence.
- Version the definition and write the re-base policy for the historical series.
Follow-up
- How do you distinguish a genuine instrumentation fix from gaming, given both look like a step change confined to one release?
- The jump appears in exactly one app_version. Does that exonerate the team or implicate it?
- What do you do with eighteen months of history once the definition is hardened?
A surrogate for twelve-month value inside a three-week test
A monetisation change — an earlier and harder paywall — will be tested for three weeks. The decision quantity is twelve-month cumulative net revenue per acquired account, which cannot be observed in three weeks. Available: fct_event, fct_session, fct_subscription_period (mrr_cents_constant_fx, period_status, change_reason, is_first_paid_period), dim_account, and fct_experiment_exposure (unit_type, unit_id, variant, first_exposed_at_utc, is_in_analysis_population). Construct a surrogate index readable at three weeks, state the assumption that makes it valid, name the mechanism that breaks it, and give the pre-registered rule for refusing to decide. Deliverable: the index, the assumption, and the refusal rule.
Approach
- State the surrogacy condition before building anything: a surrogate is valid only if the treatment's entire effect on twelve-month revenue runs through it. Then say where it fails here, because a paywall moves short-run revenue directly and long-run revenue through churn and through who becomes a payer at all.
- Fit the index on history rather than on intuition: regress twelve-month cumulative net revenue per account on features observable by day 21 — first-paid flag, activation days, week-3 core-action days, seats billed — using cohorts old enough to have a twelve-month outcome, and hold out a later cohort.
- Report the out-of-sample fit as the headline rather than the point estimate: the held-out R-squared and the calibration of predicted against actual deciles are what license any use of the index, and a decile plot catches the mis-calibration an R-squared hides.
- Name the bias direction explicitly: the relationship was estimated under the old paywall, so under a harder paywall the marginal payer is a different person and the index over-predicts their value, biasing the treatment arm optimistic.
- Surround the index with the direct three-week readouts it cannot contain — revenue per exposed unit, cancel-within-first-period rate, and the free-side signup and activation counts — and pre-register a numeric refusal rule, because the failure mode of a surrogate is being used confidently in exactly the case it was not fit for.
Follow-up
- What evidence would make you trust a surrogate for this particular change rather than a different one?
- The index reads plus 8 percent while three-week cancel-within-period is up. Which do you act on, and what do you tell the decision-maker?
- How would you size this test, on what unit, and what does that do to the three-week horizon?
Gross revenue churn doubled with no cancellations behind it
Gross monthly revenue churn computed from fct_subscription_period doubled from 1.8% to 3.6% in one month. The support queue shows no rise in cancellations and renewals look normal. You have fct_subscription_period with subscription_id, account_id, period_start_utc, period_end_utc, mrr_cents, mrr_cents_constant_fx, seats_billed, period_status, change_reason and canceled_at_utc, plus dim_account. Decompose the 1.8-point rise into named mechanisms, size each in points of the headline, and state the remainder you cannot explain.
Approach
- Reconstruct the numerator row by row and group it by change_reason before arguing about causes. A mid-period plan or seat change closes the current period row and opens a new one, so any implementation that treats a closed row as lost revenue books upgrades, downgrades and seat changes as churn; the change_reason breakdown of the numerator makes that visible in one query.
- Check the recognition timestamp. Churn belongs at period_end_utc, because revenue continues until the period ends, not at canceled_at_utc when the button was pressed. Then count period_end_utc rows per month across thirteen months: annual cohorts concentrate their period ends in the month twelve months after they were signed, so a spike that repeats in the same month last year is seasonality in the book, not an event this month.
- Recompute the whole numerator and denominator on mrr_cents_constant_fx. If the constant-currency figure is materially flatter, the move is an exchange-rate translation and belongs nowhere in a churn narrative.
- Check period_status handling. Rows with period_status = 'past_due' are dunning, not cancellation; a status-based rule counts them as loss while a period-end rule does not, and a dunning backlog can move the number by itself.
- Express every mechanism in points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual explicitly next to the month-to-month standard deviation of the prior twelve months. A decomposition without a stated remainder is a story, not an accounting.
Follow-up
- Which of these mechanisms should be fixed in the metric definition and which should be reported as a genuine business fact?
- How would you present a month whose churn is dominated by an annual cohort anniversary without the audience concluding the business is deteriorating?
- What would you change so that an upgrade can never enter the churn numerator again, and how would you test that it worked?
For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Build a fixture you can check answers against
- Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
- Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
- Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.
Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Joins, filters and NULL semantics
- Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
- Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
- Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.
Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Window functions and frames
- Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
- Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
- Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.
Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04The four analytical query patterns
- Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
- Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
- Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.
Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Write SQL the way you will have to write it live
- Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
- Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
- Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.
Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.
Practice prompt ↗06One day for everything that is not SQL
- Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
- Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
- Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.
Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.
Practice prompt ↗07Full loop rehearsal
- Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
- Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
- Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.
Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.
Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Sometimes the honest read is that the initiative did not work, and the person who commissioned the analysis was hoping otherwise. Interviewers want to know whether you softened it. Prepare the case where you delivered an unwelcome result, how you presented the uncertainty without hiding behind it, and what the team did next.
Explain a wide interval to a non-technical executive
A pricing change is under consideration. Your best estimate of its effect on trial-to-paid conversion is a 1.8pp drop, with a 95% interval from a 4.6pp drop to a 1.0pp rise, read from a geo holdout rather than a randomised test. An executive preparing a board slide asks you for 'the number'. You have ninety seconds and one slide, and the words confidence interval, p-value and significance are not usable with this audience. Deliver the slide headline, the single supporting line, and what you say aloud.
Approach
- Recognise what is being probed: whether you can carry uncertainty into a decision instead of either hiding it or hiding behind it. The generic answer promises to explain the interval in plain English; the strong one replaces the question 'what is the number' with 'across this range, where does the decision change'.
- Find the threshold before you draft anything. Ask what the pricing case assumes, then compute the conversion drop at which the higher price stops adding revenue: price uplift on the conversions kept against the revenue lost from conversions forgone. That single figure is what makes the range legible.
- Restate the estimate and both bounds in the unit the audience already reasons in. Convert percentage points into monthly first-paid conversions at current trial volume, then into mrr_cents_constant_fx, so the slide reads as money per month rather than as statistics.
- Place the range against the break-even and say which part of it sits on each side. If most of the range clears the threshold, that is a recommendation to proceed with a monitoring plan; if the range straddles it, that is a recommendation to narrow the range first.
- Name what would narrow it and what that costs in weeks, then give one recommendation with an explicit condition for revisiting it. Uncertainty stated without a next step is read as indecision and the midpoint gets used anyway.
Follow-up
- The executive says to give the midpoint and they will manage the risk. What do you do?
- How does the slide change if the interval were a 4.6pp to 0.2pp drop, with no positive outcomes in range?
- Why is a geo holdout the credible read here rather than the attributed channel numbers you already have?
Turn an ambiguous onboarding question into a measurable metric
Two days before a planning review, a director asks whether onboarding is working. You have dim_user (account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal), fct_event (is_core_action, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc) and fct_session. No further meeting with the director is possible before you start work. Deliver three clarifying questions you would send in writing, the metric you will compute in the meantime with its numerator, denominator, window and exclusions, and one sentence naming the question you are deliberately not answering.
Approach
- Recognise what is being probed: whether you convert a goal into a computable predicate without stalling for requirements or guessing in silence. Listing clarifying questions is the generic answer; shipping a defensible default alongside them is the strong one, because the review is in two days and it will happen with or without you.
- Infer the decision behind the request. A question about whether onboarding works, arriving before a planning cycle, usually means whether to staff it next quarter. That points at a rate with visible headroom over several cohorts, not at a descriptive dashboard.
- Write the three questions so that each one changes the SQL. Which population, all signups or only self-serve from dim_user.signup_surface. What counts as working, reaching a core action or completing the onboarding flow_id. Against what bar, last quarter's cohorts or a stated target.
- Propose the default explicitly: seven-day activation on weekly signup cohorts. Numerator, users with is_core_action = TRUE events on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Denominator, the signup cohort with is_internal = FALSE. Publish with an eight-day lag, and state that the two-distinct-days threshold is a frozen choice rather than a discovery.
- Name the exclusion in the same breath as the number. The series shows whether users activate; it does not establish that onboarding caused the level, which needs a staged rollout or an experiment.
Follow-up
- The director replies that they meant the onboarding flow specifically, not activation. What changes in the query and in the caveats?
- Your cohort metric needs an eight-day lag and the review is in two days. What do you present, and how do you label it?
- Two of your three questions come back unanswered. Which one do you refuse to proceed without?
Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched
You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.
Approach
- Recognise what is being probed: whether you apply to your own work the causal standard you would apply to somebody else's roadmap claim. Nearly everyone who would reject 'accounts that do Y retain better' will write 'I drove a 14% increase' without noticing it is the same error with a friendlier subject.
- Sort the work by the kind of evidence it can carry. The shipped experiment is the only item with a randomised estimate, so it is the only one where an effect size is defensible, and you claim the interval rather than the point estimate.
- Claim the three flat experiments as decisions prevented and price them. Features not built, or built differently, on evidence, with the engineering weeks reallocated as the number somebody else can verify. A defensible null is a delivered decision and should be written as one.
- Claim the definition fix as correctness, not as improvement. The old figure was overstated by a specific percentage and appeared in a specific set of recurring documents; the impact is the change it produced in the forecast built on top of it, not a change in churn itself.
- Claim the dashboard on usage and displacement: distinct weekly users of it, and the ad-hoc request count for six months before against six months after. If the request log does not exist, record the claim as unverified rather than estimating it upward.
- Disclaim the 14% explicitly and once. State that it cannot be separated from seasonality, other teams' launches and a pricing change, and bound your own contribution from above using the shipped experiment's interval converted into headline units.
Follow-up
- Your shipped experiment's interval was +0.2pp to +1.4pp on activation. How much of the 14% can that account for, and how do you say so without undercutting yourself?
- A peer in the same cycle claims the full 14%. What, if anything, do you do about it?
- If you could only keep two of your three claims, which do you drop, and why that one?
- 01
A pricing change is under consideration. Your best estimate of its effect on trial-to-paid conversion is a 1.8pp drop, with a 95% interval from a 4.6pp drop to a 1.0pp rise, read from a geo holdout rather than a randomised test. An executive preparing a board slide asks you for 'the number'. You have ninety seconds and one slide, and the words confidence interval, p-value and significance are not usable with this audience. Deliver the slide headline, the single supporting line, and what you say aloud.
- 02
Two days before a planning review, a director asks whether onboarding is working. You have dim_user (account_created_at_utc, signup_surface, is_internal), fct_event (is_core_action, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc) and fct_session. No further meeting with the director is possible before you start work. Deliver three clarifying questions you would send in writing, the metric you will compute in the meantime with its numerator, denominator, window and exclusions, and one sentence naming the question you are deliberately not answering.
- 03
You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.
Is this an official LexisNexis Risk Solutions interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process LexisNexis Risk Solutions has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How difficult is the interview loop, and how much preparation time should I budget?
The interview process is generally rated as average in difficulty, but the breadth of topics requires serious preparation. Budget between four to six weeks of dedicated study, focusing heavily on SQL window functions, A/B testing edge cases, and articulating your past machine learning projects clearly.
PracHub interview research ↗What differentiates a successful candidate from an average one during the onsite rounds?
Successful candidates distinguish themselves by connecting technical decisions to business value. Instead of just talking about algorithm selection, they proactively discuss operational constraints, latency requirements, experimentation pitfalls, and how their models integrate with production engineering infrastructure.
PracHub interview research ↗How should I prepare for the take-home assessment or presentation round?
Treat the take-home task as production code, not a quick prototype. Ensure your code is well-tested, your repository is clean, and your presentation clearly walks through your assumptions, methodology, model evaluation metrics, and business recommendations. Be ready to defend your design choices under friendly questioning.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the typical timeline from initial recruiter screening to final offer?
The timeline can vary depending on team urgency and scheduling alignment across a diverse hiring panel, typically spanning several weeks from first contact. Maintaining open communication with your recruiter and promptly following up on scheduling helps keep the process moving smoothly.
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.
Fetch Rewards Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Product-sense practice for a Fetch Rewards data scientist interview: define a product and business analytics metric, pick its guardrails, and argue why a tempting alternative would mislead you.
1 digit technology Pvt Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Take-home style practice for data scientists preparing for 1 digit technology Pvt: 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 number
xAI Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for xAI data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.
Windfall Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Data-quality drills for Windfall 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 ge