A Data Scientist at Razorpay operates at the intersection of high-scale financial transactions and advanced machine learning. Your work directly impacts the backbone of the Indian digital payment ecosystem, influencing everything from fraud detection and risk management to optimizing payment success rates and personalizing merchant experiences. You are not just building models; you are solving complex, high-stakes problems that require precision, scalability, and a deep understanding of financial data patterns.
The role is both challenging and intellectually stimulating because of the sheer volume and velocity of data processed by Razorpay. You will collaborate closely with product and engineering teams to turn raw data into actionable business intelligence. Whether you are improving credit underwriting algorithms or detecting anomalous transaction patterns in real-time, your contributions directly affect the trust and efficiency of millions of merchants and consumers.
Given the high-stakes nature of fintech, expect interviewers to prioritize your ability to explain the 'why' behind your models, not just the 'how.' Focus on the business impact of your technical decisions.
Technical Assessment
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
Deep-Dive Rounds
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.
Averaging delinquency across a book that is growing
A loan three months old cannot be 90 days past due, so a portfolio with many recent originations reports a low blended 90+ rate purely from age mix. The blended rate falls fastest exactly when originations grow fastest, which is precisely when credit quality most needs watching, so the metric moves in the reassuring direction during the riskiest period. Only comparisons at equal months on book are valid, which is what a vintage or roll-rate view enforces.
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.
Defining the cohort on a post-treatment condition
Ask how rows entered the table. Filtering on something that treatment itself influences, such as users who finished onboarding or accounts still active at ninety days, breaks comparability between arms; define the population at an entry point that precedes exposure and keep everyone in it.
Reading experiment results before checking the arm split
Compare observed arm counts against the intended allocation ratio, not an assumed even split, and set the alarm far below the conventional 0.05: at 0.05 roughly one healthy experiment in twenty trips it, which is why sample-ratio checks usually run at p < 0.001 or stricter. The test's power scales with sample size, so it misses a real diversion on a small experiment and fires on an imbalance too small to move the estimate on a very large one. A flag means go find the assignment or logging fault before reading any outcome, not report a mismatch.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
Describe how you would handle missing data in a large-scale tabular da…
Describe how you would handle missing data in a large-scale tabular dataset.
Approach
- Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
- Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
- Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Follow-up
- How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
- What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
Can you explain the intuition behind Bayesian inference?
Can you explain the intuition behind Bayesian inference?
Approach
- Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
- Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
- Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
Follow-up
- How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
- Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?
How would you determine if a change in payment success rates is statis…
How would you determine if a change in payment success rates is statistically significant?
Approach
- Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
- Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
- Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Follow-up
- What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
- Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?
Describe the difference between bagging and boosting techniques.
Describe the difference between bagging and boosting techniques.
Approach
- Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Follow-up
- What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
What is the difference between Type I and Type II errors, and which is…
What is the difference between Type I and Type II errors, and which is more costly in a credit risk model?
Approach
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Follow-up
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
Write integrity checks for the authorization and settlement lifecycle
You are given fct_payment_authorization as a pandas DataFrame with auth_id, requested_at, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, decline_reason_code, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, captured_at, captured_amount_minor, settled_at, settlement_amount_minor, settlement_currency and settlement_fx_rate. Write a function returning one row per integrity check with the check name, failing row count, failing share and up to five example auth_id values. Cover at least six checks, one of which reconciles captured_amount_minor against settlement_amount_minor through settlement_fx_rate. Partial capture, zero-amount verification and a decline with no capture are all legitimate and must not be flagged.
Approach
- Separate contract violations from observations before writing any code: an approved row carrying a decline_reason_code is structurally impossible, while a capture two days after requested_at is merely slow and belongs in a different severity tier.
- Express each check as a boolean mask over the whole frame and collect the masks in a dict, so the summary table is one comprehension over mask.sum() rather than a row loop.
- For the reconciliation, leave minor units before comparing: expected = captured_amount_minor / 10exponent[transaction_currency] * settlement_fx_rate * 10exponent[settlement_currency]. Build the exponent table covering zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies instead of assuming two everywhere.
- Guard the legitimate cases explicitly so each mask fires only on the genuine contradiction: captured_amount_minor below amount_minor is partial capture, amount_minor of zero on an approved row is account verification, a null captured_at on a declined row is correct.
- Sort the output by failing share times a stated severity weight, because a check firing on 0.01 percent of rows can still be the one that breaks a ledger reconciliation.
Worked solution 25 min
- Assert auth_id is unique, then build a currency exponent lookup that includes the zero-decimal and three-decimal currencies present in the data.
- Define masks for: approved with non-null decline_reason_code; declined with non-null captured_at; captured_amount_minor above amount_minor with parent_auth_id null; captured_at before requested_at; settled_at before captured_at; is_reversal true with parent_auth_id null; settlement_currency differing from transaction_currency while settlement_fx_rate is null.
- Add the exponent-aware reconciliation mask with a tolerance of one minor unit plus a small relative term.
- Assemble a frame of check_name, n_failing, pct_failing and up to five sample auth_id values, ordered by severity then share.
- Read five flagged rows per check by hand and confirm each is genuinely contradictory before reporting any counts.
Follow-up
- Which of these would you run as a blocking pipeline assertion and which as a monitored metric, and why?
- The FX check fails on 3 percent of rows, all in one settlement currency. How do you decide between a data bug and a rounding convention?
- How would you detect that a currency's minor-unit exponent is wrong in your reference table, using only the transaction data?
Monthly delinquency roll rates with honest exiting-account denominators
From fct_loan_performance_monthly, compute month-over-month roll rates: for each as_of_month_end and delinquency_bucket, the share of loans in that bucket that are in a worse state at the following month end. Use this disposition convention and apply it without exception: charge-off is the terminal state one rank past dpd_90_plus, so a loan that charges off has rolled forward, not exited; loans that leave the book any other way — prepaid in full, sold, matured, or simply absent at the next month end — are exited. Bucket order is current, dpd_1_29, dpd_30_59, dpd_60_89, dpd_90_plus, then charged_off. Return from_month, from_bucket, accounts, rolled_forward, cured, stayed, exited and roll_rate, and show that the four dispositions sum to accounts on every row.
Approach
- Map the five delinquency_bucket values to ranks 0 through 4 in a small inline VALUES list, and reserve rank 5 for charged_off, because 'worse' is an ordering statement and enum text does not sort that way reliably. Read charge-off from charge_off_flag on the next month's row rather than from delinquency_bucket, which keeps carrying whatever delinquency value the loan held when it was written off.
- Use LEAD(as_of_month_end), LEAD(bucket_rank) and LEAD(charge_off_flag) OVER (PARTITION BY loan_id ORDER BY as_of_month_end), then verify the leading month end is exactly one month after the current one, since a loan missing a month would otherwise appear to cure or roll across a gap it never traversed.
- Classify each loan-month into exactly one of four labels off the adjacent next row, whose rank is 5 when its charge_off_flag is true and its mapped bucket rank otherwise. rolled_forward: the next rank is strictly greater. cured: strictly lower. stayed: equal. exited: there is no adjacent next row at all, which is where prepayment, sale, maturity and a gap in the monthly history land.
- Define rolled_forward as 'any strictly worse rank', not 'rank plus one'. Under normal monthly aging the only reachable worse state is the next bucket, so the two definitions coincide — except at charge-off, where a loan can go from dpd_60_89 straight to rank 5. A strict plus-one test leaves those loan-months matching no branch and breaks the exhaustiveness invariant.
- Be explicit about why charge-off is a roll rather than an exit: routed to exited, dpd_90_plus has no worse state left, so its roll_rate is identically zero by construction — arithmetic, not a credit finding. At rank 5 the dpd_90_plus row reports roll-to-loss, which is the number a loss forecast actually consumes.
- Aggregate by from_month and from_bucket and require that rolled_forward + cured + stayed + exited equals accounts on every row, which is the invariant that proves the classification is exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
Follow-up
- Project the next three months of dpd_90_plus inflow from these roll rates. What assumption does that projection make, and when does it break?
- A restructure resets days_past_due to zero. What does that do to the cure rate out of dpd_60_89, and how would you separate a real cure from a reset?
- Argue the other convention: prepayment in exited but charge-off also in exited, with roll rates reported only for the four non-terminal buckets. What does that series answer better, and what does it lose?
- The charge-off policy changed from 180 to 120 days. Show where that appears in this table and what it does to the dpd_90_plus roll rate specifically.
Accident-quarter loss ratio on earned rather than written premium
From fct_policy_period_monthly, compute the accident-quarter loss ratio by product_line: incurred losses, being paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor, over earned_premium_minor for the same accident quarter. State explicitly whether loss_adjustment_expense_minor is included and apply that choice consistently. Also output the same ratio computed on written_premium_minor so the two can be compared. The table holds current values with no valuation-date snapshot. Say in one line which comparison this schema cannot support and what you would need to support it.
Approach
- Derive the accident quarter from as_of_month with date_trunc, and note that the table already attributes losses to the month of the loss event while earning premium pro rata into the same month, which is what makes the two sides comparable at all.
- Aggregate earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor and the three loss components to product_line and accident quarter in one pass, keeping loss adjustment expense as its own column so the inclusion choice is a final-select decision rather than something buried in a CTE.
- Compute both ratios side by side and a third column for their difference, because the size and sign of that difference is a direct read on whether the book grew or shrank in the quarter.
- State the limitation plainly: every row carries today's reserve estimate, so each accident quarter is observed at a different development age and a cross-quarter comparison mixes development with underwriting. A fixed development age needs a valuation-date dimension, that is one row per accident period per valuation, which this table does not have.
- Guard against the mirror-image error on the numerator by confirming ibnr_reserve_minor is non-zero on recent quarters; if it is null or zero there, the recent periods are understated twice over and the series is not usable.
Worked solution 40 min
- CTE quarterly: group fct_policy_period_monthly by product_line and date_trunc('quarter', as_of_month), summing earned_premium_minor, written_premium_minor, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor and loss_adjustment_expense_minor.
- Final SELECT: build incurred_minor as the three loss components plus the LAE column, with the LAE inclusion written as a named expression so the choice is visible on the page.
- Emit loss_ratio_earned and loss_ratio_written, both cast to numeric, plus their difference and the written-to-earned premium ratio.
- Order by product_line and accident quarter, and append the one-line note about the missing valuation dimension to the query as a comment.
Follow-up
- Written premium exceeds earned premium by 18 percent this quarter and by 3 percent two years ago. What happened to the book, and what does it do to each ratio?
- How would you build a development triangle from a valuation-dated version of this table, and what would you use the chain-ladder factors for?
- Statutory presentation conventionally takes the expense ratio on written premium while the loss ratio uses earned. How do you avoid a combined ratio that quietly mixes the two bases?
How would you measure the performance of a recommendation engine for m…
How would you measure the performance of a recommendation engine for merchant services?
Approach
- Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Follow-up
- Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
- What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
Explain the Central Limit Theorem and its relevance to A/B testing.
Explain the Central Limit Theorem and its relevance to A/B testing.
Approach
- Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
- Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
- Say whether units interfere with each other, and switch design if they do.
Follow-up
- How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
- What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
How would you design a system to identify suspicious merchant behavior…
How would you design a system to identify suspicious merchant behavior?
Approach
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Monitor a rollout daily without inflating false positives
A risk-rule change is ramped to 50 percent and the team reads the dashboard every morning for twenty business days, intending to stop the first time the two-sided p-value on the count-weighted approval rate falls below 0.05. Quantify how much that inflates the false positive rate, propose a monitoring scheme that still permits an early stop for harm, and explain what dispute maturity does to the matured fraud basis points guardrail when it is read on day twenty.
Approach
- Quantify rather than assert. Repeatedly applying a fixed-horizon test at nominal two-sided 0.05 inflates the family-wise type I error to roughly 8 percent at 2 looks, 14 percent at 5, 19 percent at 10 and about 25 percent at 20 equally spaced looks. Under continuous monitoring with no stopping rule the probability of crossing at some point tends to 1.
- Pick a scheme matched to how the team actually behaves. If looks are on a fixed schedule, use a group-sequential design with an alpha-spending function: O'Brien-Fleming spends almost nothing early so the final boundary stays near nominal, which suits a team that mostly wants to ship at the end; Pocock spends evenly and buys genuine early-stopping power at the cost of a stricter final boundary. If looks are truly continuous and ad hoc, use an always-valid confidence sequence such as a mixture sequential probability ratio test, which is valid at every moment in exchange for a larger fixed-horizon sample at equal power.
- Treat the harm stop as a separate, asymmetric decision. Stopping a change because it looks harmful costs one abandoned experiment; failing to stop costs real loss every day it runs. Run the guardrail as a one-sided monitor at a looser alpha with its own pre-registered stop rule, and do not spend the primary metric's alpha budget on it.
- Fix the schedule before launch: the number of looks, their timing, the boundaries, and the maximum sample. Boundaries computed after the fact from however many times someone opened the dashboard are not a correction.
- Separate peeking from immaturity on the fraud guardrail. Disputes on a transaction can be filed for roughly 120 days, and some reason codes run longer, so a day-twenty read covers transactions with at most twenty days of dispute exposure. The number is not low, it is incomplete. Either report only matured transaction months, or apply development factors estimated from completed months and label the result an estimate with its interval.
Worked solution 25 min
- Quote the inflation for the stated plan: twenty looks at nominal two-sided 0.05 gives a family-wise type I error of about 25 percent, so one rule change in four would appear significant with no true effect.
- Specify the replacement: five pre-scheduled looks at 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 percent of planned sample under an O'Brien-Fleming spending function, with z boundaries of approximately 4.56, 3.23, 2.63, 2.28 and 2.04. For comparison, a Pocock design at five looks uses a constant boundary of about 2.41.
- Add a one-sided harm monitor on the fraud guardrail and the decline-rate guardrail with its own alpha and its own pre-registered rule, documented before launch.
- For the fraud read, restrict to transaction months with at least 120 days of maturity; if none exist yet, present a development-factor estimate from completed months with its uncertainty and mark the recent months incomplete on the chart rather than plotting them as low.
- If the boundary is crossed early, report a bias-adjusted effect estimate, because the estimate at a stopping boundary is systematically larger in magnitude than the truth.
Follow-up
- Under an O'Brien-Fleming boundary you cross on day three. What do you say about the effect size, and why is the naive point estimate biased?
- How would you set the stopping rule for the fraud guardrail given that its true value is not observable inside the test window?
- The team argues that they are only looking, not deciding, so peeking is harmless. Under what precise condition is that true, and how would you verify it?
Fraud losses appear to halve in recent transaction months
A weekly chart attributes fct_card_dispute cases to the requested_at month of the linked fct_payment_authorization row. The two most recent months show the first-chargeback rate falling by half, and a risk rule shipped six weeks ago. Columns: dispute_id, auth_id, dispute_category, dispute_stage, opened_at, disputed_amount_minor, liability_shift_flag, outcome, net_loss_minor, resolved_at. Decide whether the rule worked, and produce the version of the chart you would sign your name to.
Approach
- Separate the two dates explicitly. opened_at is when a case was filed, requested_at is when the transaction happened. Attributing by transaction month is the right causal choice and is exactly what makes the newest months structurally incomplete.
- Measure the filing lag rather than assuming it: the distribution of opened_at minus requested_at over fully developed months, split by dispute_category, and the age at which around 95 percent of cases have arrived.
- Build a development triangle of transaction month by months of development on cumulative case counts, and estimate age-to-age factors from the columns that are complete.
- Develop the immature months with those factors and plot the result as an estimate with a visible band, kept visually distinct from the matured series rather than blended into it.
- State the assumption the method needs: a stable development pattern across cohorts. A change in filing behaviour, merchant mix or the dispute team's own backlog breaks it, so inspect factor stability down each column before relying on the estimate.
- Only then evaluate the rule, comparing pre-change and post-change cohorts at equal development age.
Follow-up
- What leading indicator would you accept while the cohort matures, and what is its known bias?
- How does liability_shift_flag change which disputes you should expect to see in the first place?
- If the rule also blocked good transactions, where does that cost appear, and is any of it in this chart?
For a candidate whose interviews will centre on A/B testing, metric movement and causal claims. Design comes before arithmetic, arithmetic before analysis, and the week ends by rehearsing the readout rather than the derivation.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Design one test end to end on paper
- Take a single feature change and write the full design: randomization unit, the exact point of exposure, the primary metric with its grain, guardrails, allocation, planned duration, and the decision rule committed before any data exists.
- Write why the randomization unit must sit at or above the level where treatment can spill over, and give one case where user-level randomization is still contaminated (shared accounts or devices, or two participants in the same marketplace).
- State in advance what you will do if the primary metric is flat while a secondary metric is significant.
Deliverable: A one-page test design with a decision rule written before launch.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Power arithmetic until it is automatic
- Compute required sample size per arm for a binary metric with the normal approximation, n is approximately 2 times (z for alpha/2 plus z for power) squared times p(1 minus p) divided by delta squared, for baselines of 2, 10 and 40 percent at a 5 percent relative lift, and note that for a fixed relative lift the requirement falls as the baseline rises because delta grows proportionally with p.
- Redo the calculation for a continuous metric using variance in place of p(1 minus p), and show why a heavy-tailed quantity such as revenue per user needs either far more traffic or a capped version with a stated cap.
- Convert one of the results into weeks given a weekly eligible traffic figure, then list the two honest ways to shorten it (accept a larger detectable effect, or reduce variance) and write why quietly lowering the power target is a decision to miss more real wins, not a speedup.
Deliverable: A small script or sheet that maps baseline, minimum detectable effect, alpha and power to sample size and weeks, cross-checked against a published calculator.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Variance and the unit-of-analysis problem
- Take a ratio metric whose denominator is not the randomization unit (clicks per session, randomized by user) and compute the standard error twice, once naively at session level and once by the delta method or a user-level bootstrap, then record how much the naive version understates it.
- Implement CUPED on simulated data: choose a pre-period covariate X measured before assignment, estimate theta as Cov(Y, X) divided by Var(X), and analyse Y minus theta times (X minus its mean) in place of Y. Confirm the variance of the adjusted outcome equals the raw variance multiplied by one minus the squared correlation between Y and X, so a correlation of 0.45 removes about 20 percent of the variance and not 80.
- Now run that simulation a few hundred times and confirm the adjusted effect estimate is unbiased for the same effect rather than numerically identical to the raw one. Within any single run the two differ, sometimes by a large fraction of the true effect, because the two arms' pre-period covariate means never coincide exactly in a finite sample; they agree in expectation, which is the property that matters and the one to state out loud.
Deliverable: A notebook showing the adjusted estimator with a measurably smaller variance than the raw one, plus a repeated-simulation table showing the two estimators agreeing on average while differing run by run.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04Validity threats you can actually test for
- Run a sample ratio mismatch check as a chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended allocation, and write the three causes you would chase first (assignment logged before exposure, an arm-specific redirect or load failure, bot filtering applied asymmetrically).
- Simulate peeking: generate A/A data, test daily at alpha 0.05 across 14 looks, record the inflated false positive rate, then apply an alpha-spending boundary or commit to a fixed horizon and confirm the rate returns to nominal.
- Write how you would separate a novelty effect from a durable lift using the treatment effect plotted against days since first exposure, and what shape would change your recommendation.
Deliverable: One table showing the peeking false positive rate before and after correction, plus a written SRM triage list.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05When randomization is not available
- Write the identifying assumption for difference-in-differences (parallel trends in the absence of treatment), then plot pre-period trends for two candidate control groups and justify rejecting one of them.
- Design a switchback test for a change where user-level randomization would leak across participants, choosing a time-block length against the carryover you expect and saying how you would detect carryover in the data.
- List what an interrupted time series or a synthetic control buys you and the one thing neither can rule out: an unobserved shock that coincides with the launch.
Deliverable: A one-page memo recommending a single quasi-experimental design and naming its weakest assumption explicitly.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06The readout query
- Write the assignment-to-exposure join that returns exactly one row per unit per experiment, and handle units appearing in both arms by excluding and counting them rather than silently keeping one.
- Compute the per-arm metric, its variance and the relative lift with a confidence interval in SQL, then reproduce the identical numbers in a notebook as a cross-check.
- Add a segment breakdown and write the sentence that keeps it from being p-hacking: segments declared in advance, everything else reported as exploratory and corrected for multiplicity.
Deliverable: A single query that outputs the full readout table, matched to a notebook recomputation.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Present it to someone who will not read the appendix
- Give a 10-minute readout of a real or simulated experiment in the order decision, number, uncertainty, caveat.
- Have your listener ask "can we ship it" in the case where the primary is flat and a guardrail moved, and answer with a recommendation rather than a request for more data.
- Rewrite your opening line so the recommendation lands before any methodology.
Deliverable: A one-page readout whose first line is the recommendation.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
A number you shipped turned out to be wrong, and someone had already acted on it. That is one of the most useful stories a data person can carry. What is being scored is how fast you noticed, who you told first, and what you changed in the process so the same class of error could not repeat quietly.
How do you handle imbalanced datasets, specifically in the context of …
How do you handle imbalanced datasets, specifically in the context of fraud detection?
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
- Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
- How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
- What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
Allocate one analyst-week across three competing risk requests
Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.
Approach
- Score each request on the decision it unblocks rather than on effort or on how loudly it arrived: what changes if it is late, and is that change reversible.
- Separate deadline from value. The nine-day renewal is a hard, irreversible date with a bounded prize; the six-week cutoff has slack but a much larger downside if it ships unmeasured; the reserving number has no date but feeds external reporting, which is its own kind of hard.
- Hunt for the cheap partial in each: a decline teardown restricted to the top merchants by declined value usually answers the contract question at a fraction of the full cut.
- Sequence by hard date first, then by largest irreversible downside, and deliver the trade-off to all three sponsors in one message rather than three, so nobody negotiates privately against a version you told someone else.
- Name what is dropped and who now owns that consequence, in writing, so the trade-off is visible rather than silently absorbed by you.
Follow-up
- The credit sponsor escalates to your manager. What do you change, and what do you refuse to change?
- How would you make this allocation reproducible so the next contested week is a rule application rather than a negotiation?
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?
- 01
How do you handle imbalanced datasets, specifically in the context of fraud detection?
- 02
Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.
- 03
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.
Is this an official razorpay interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at razorpay. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process razorpay has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗Is the interview process very difficult?
The difficulty is generally perceived as moderate to high. It is less about "trick questions" and more about your ability to consistently apply your knowledge to real-world scenarios.
PracHub interview research ↗How much time should I spend preparing?
Dedicate at least 3–4 weeks for structured review, focusing heavily on your past projects and the core machine learning concepts mentioned in this guide.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the most common reason for rejection?
A lack of clarity in explaining the "why" behind your technical decisions or failing to connect your model to the business impact is a frequent pitfall.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Data Scientist practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
1st Central Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Causal-inference exercises for 1st Central data scientist prep: difference-in-differences, matching, instrumental variables, and knowing when observational data simply cannot answer the question asked.
3M Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for 3M data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.
ValueLabs Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Causal-inference exercises for ValueLabs data scientist prep: difference-in-differences, matching, instrumental variables, and knowing when observational data simply cannot answer the question asked.
vConstruct Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for vConstruct data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.