As a Data Scientist at Shyena Tech Yarns, you transform raw data into actionable intelligence that drives the company's product roadmap and operational efficiency. You will sit at the intersection of engineering, product management, and business strategy, tasked with solving complex problems that directly influence the company's user experience and bottom line. Your work involves everything from designing robust metrics to building predictive models that power the company's core features.
The role matters to Shyena Tech Yarns because the company relies on data-driven decision-making to stay competitive. You will not just be building models in a silo; you will be expected to act as a partner to cross-functional teams, translating technical insights into clear, strategic recommendations. Whether you are diagnosing a sudden drop in a key product metric or designing a rigorous A/B test to validate a new feature, your contributions will be central to the company's growth and innovation.
Application Review
reportedMost candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
- Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
- The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal
How to prepare
- Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
- Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
- Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered
Technical Screens
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
Take-Home Assignment
reportedThe clock is part of the test. Three to six hours is not enough to do everything the dataset supports, so the submission mostly reveals how you spend a fixed budget against an open question. A reviewer sees which paths you took and, by absence, which you abandoned. Work that runs out of time inside the analysis ships a thin conclusion, while work that cuts scope early protects the last hour for writing. The most reliable way to lose here is to leave the scoping decision implicit, so it reads as something you missed rather than something you chose.
What to demonstrate
- Whether the scope you settled on is presented as a decision with a reason, rather than left for the reader to infer from what is missing
- Whether the depth of the work is consistent with the stated time budget, instead of several half-finished directions left open
- Whether the closing section reads as something written on purpose rather than assembled from whichever cells survived
How to prepare
- Run a timed rehearsal on a public dataset with a hard stop, holding the final sixty minutes for writing no matter where the analysis has got to
- Before opening the data, list the questions it could plausibly answer, pick one, and keep the discarded ones as a short note on what you did not attempt and why
- Commit a one-line finding after each analysis step so the writeup is assembled from recorded results rather than from memory at midnight
Deep-Dive Discussions
reportedRounds outside the standard loop often open with something deliberately under-specified: a loose business problem, an open question about a product area, a dataset described in one sentence. The common failure is surveying, listing six plausible approaches and committing to none of them. The thing that separates a strong answer is scoping out loud. State what you are treating as the goal, name the metric you would move, say what you are choosing not to do and why, then take one path through to an actual answer. An interviewer can follow you down a narrow path. Nobody can grade a menu.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you turn an ambiguous prompt into a stated question with a measurable outcome before doing any work
- The judgement visible in what you cut, and whether you say why you cut it rather than silently dropping it
- Whether you land on a concrete recommendation with its caveat attached, rather than an unranked set of options
How to prepare
- Take three vague prompts, such as 'is this feature working', 'why did retention drop', and 'should we expand into a new segment'. For each, write one sentence of goal, one primary metric with its window, and two things you are explicitly not doing.
- Practise giving the recommendation first and the reasoning second, in five minutes. Loosely defined rounds are usually time-boxed, and an answer that arrives last often does not arrive.
- Keep a running assumption list as you talk, on paper or in the shared doc, so the interviewer can challenge one assumption instead of your whole answer.
Final Offer
reportedWhere a loop ends with a senior leader, that conversation is rarely another skills test. The technical signal already exists by then, so the questions tend to open up: what you would look at first, where a metric you have heard about could mislead, what you would push back on. The decision being made is scope, which in practice means level and how much you would be trusted to own unsupervised. Treating it as a formality is the usual mistake. An open question late in the day is still being scored, and a vague answer reads as someone who has not run anything themselves.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your view of the business has anything specific behind it, given that you are working only from what is public and are expected to say so
- Whether the scope of work you describe owning matches the scope of the role, instead of sitting a level below it
- Whether you can disagree with something concrete and stay useful about it, rather than agreeing with everything said in the room
- Whether your questions are ones only this person could answer, as opposed to ones the recruiter already covered
How to prepare
- Build one view you could defend for two minutes using only public information: what the funnel probably looks like, which metric likely drives decisions, and where that metric could mislead. Being wrong for a stated reason survives this round; having no view does not
- Write down the largest piece of work you have owned from question to decision, who else touched it, and what you decided alone, then check that it reads at the level you are interviewing for
- Prepare one thing you would want changed if you joined and phrase it as a question rather than a verdict, so it opens a conversation instead of closing one
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Treating last-touch attribution as the causal value of a channel
The attribution label on dim_user is the output of a rule that assigns full credit to whichever touch happened to be recorded last inside a lookback window, and that rule systematically rewards channels that sit close to the conversion, especially branded search and retargeting, which largely intercept demand that already existed. Reallocating spend on those labels moves budget toward the channels that are best at being last, which is why attributed return on ad spend often improves while total signups do not. Nothing in the touchpoint data can settle this, because the counterfactual of not running the channel was never observed. The credible reads are a geo holdout or a scheduled pause, sized in advance on the total-signups metric rather than on the attributed one, and the honest framing in the meantime is that the label describes correlation with conversion and not incremental contribution.
Reading a pooled rate that moved because the mix moved, not because any behaviour changed
A pooled conversion rate is a weighted average, and a shift in the weights can move it in the opposite direction to every one of its parts. A paid campaign that brings low-converting traffic drops overall signup conversion even if desktop, mobile web and app conversion each rose that week, which is Simpson's paradox and it is the single most common cause of an inexplicable dashboard move. The discipline is to decompose before explaining: recompute the rate holding last period's segment weights fixed, and compare that counterfactual to the actual, so the mix effect and the rate effect are separated numerically rather than argued about. Segment on the dimensions that actually reweight, which in this domain are almost always device_type, referrer_channel, country and new versus returning.
Reading an observational correlation as a causal effect
Name the confounder you are most worried about and the design that would remove it: an experiment, a difference-in-differences with a checked pre-period trend, an instrument, or a regression discontinuity. When none is available, state which direction the bias likely runs and bound the claim accordingly.
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.
Split a pooled conversion drop into rate and mix
You have weekly visit-to-signup counts by segment: a DataFrame with week, device_type, referrer_channel, visitors and signups. The pooled rate fell 0.84 percentage points between two consecutive weeks while several individual segments rose. Write a function that, for a caller-supplied list of segment columns, splits the pooled change into a rate effect, a mix effect and an interaction term that sum exactly to the observed change. Return those three scalars plus a per-segment contribution table sorted by absolute contribution, so the largest single driver can be named.
Approach
- State the algebra before coding: the pooled rate is r = sum over segments of w_s * r_s, with w_s the segment's share of the denominator. Then r1 - r0 decomposes exactly into sum(w_s0 * (r_s1 - r_s0)) for rate, sum((w_s1 - w_s0) * r_s0) for mix, and sum((w_s1 - w_s0) * (r_s1 - r_s0)) for interaction. The identity is per-segment, so it holds for any numbers you put in the four slots.
- Pivot both weeks onto a common segment index with an outer join so a segment that appeared or vanished is kept rather than dropped, then decide what rate to give a segment with no visitors in one of the weeks, and document the choice. The identity stays exact either way because the missing week's weight is 0, but the attribution does not. Filling the missing rate with 0 sends an appearing segment's entire w_s1 * r_s1 into the interaction term, since w_s0 = 0 makes both the rate term and the mix term (w_s1 - w_s0) * r_s0 identically zero; a vanishing segment then splits as -w_s0 * r_s0 in rate, -w_s0 * r_s0 in mix and +w_s0 * r_s0 in interaction.
- The convention used below instead imputes the missing week's rate as that week's pooled rate. A vanishing segment then lands wholly in mix at -w_s0 * r_s0, with rate and interaction cancelling; an appearing segment puts w_s1 * r_pooled0 in mix (volume arriving at the average rate) and only w_s1 * (r_s1 - r_pooled0) in interaction (its rate differing from that average). Impute by which week the segment is missing from, never by argument order, or the swap identities below stop holding.
- Guard the division where visitors is 0 so no NaN enters the vectors, because a single NaN poisons every sum. A segment with zero visitors in both weeks contributes exactly 0 and can be dropped; a segment missing from only one week does not contribute 0, and where its contribution lands is settled by the convention above, not by the guard.
- Compute the three components as vectors over segments, then sum. Keep the vectors, because the per-segment contribution table is what turns the decomposition into an explanation.
- Assert that the three components sum to the observed pooled change within floating-point tolerance. This identity is exact, so a mismatch means an implementation bug, not a modelling judgement.
Follow-up
- The mix effect accounts for 0.71 of the 0.84 point drop, driven by paid_social volume. What is your recommendation, and what would change it?
- Why is a two-way split into a counterfactual rate and a residual also exact, and when would you prefer it to the three-way version?
- Segmenting on device and channel leaves a large interaction term. What does that tell you about the choice of segments?
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.
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?
Audit a one-day event extract for structural defects
You receive a one-day extract of fct_event as a DataFrame with event_id, occurred_at_utc, received_at_utc, visitor_id, user_id, account_id, event_name, is_bot_flagged and surface. Write a function returning one row per data-quality rule with the rule name, the failing row count and the failing share of the extract. Cover at minimum: duplicate event_id, received_at_utc earlier than occurred_at_utc, occurred_at_utc later than the extract's maximum received_at_utc, account_id present while user_id is NULL, and rows whose occurred_at date differs from their received_at date. Do not drop rows; report only.
Approach
- Compute the extract's own reference clock first: max(received_at_utc). Wall-clock now() is wrong here because the extract may be replayed days later, which would turn every row into a future-dated failure.
- Express each rule as a boolean Series over the same index so the checks compose, then aggregate with .sum() and divide by len(df). Building a list of (name, mask) pairs keeps the rule set extensible and keeps one code path for counting.
- For the duplicate rule, decide and state the convention: df.duplicated('event_id', keep=False).sum() counts every member of a duplicated group, df.duplicated('event_id').sum() counts only the surplus copies. Either is defensible; an unstated choice is not. The rest of this item assumes keep=False.
- Treat received_at < occurred_at as clock skew, not corruption: occurred_at is client-supplied. Separate it from the date-mismatch rule, which is the one that actually breaks a daily metric keyed on occurred_at.
- Know which rules imply which before you read the counts. A row whose occurred_at exceeds max(received_at_utc) has its own received_at no later than that maximum, so it is necessarily a clock-skew row as well: the future-dated mask is a subset of the skew mask, always. Neither is a subset of the date-mismatch mask, because skew of a few minutes inside one UTC date mismatches nothing.
- Return a tidy DataFrame sorted by failing_share descending, and add a boolean column saying whether the rule should block publication, so the output is a decision rather than a list of numbers.
Worked solution 20 min
- Parse both timestamp columns with utc=True and assert the dtype, since a silently-object column makes every comparison string-wise and wrong.
- Set ref = df['received_at_utc'].max() and build the five masks against it.
- Assemble results as pd.DataFrame(rows) with columns rule, failing_rows, failing_share, blocks_publication.
- Keep the masks addressable (a dict of name to Series) rather than only their sums, so the overlap between rules can be asserted rather than assumed.
- Verify the function is pure: assert the input frame's shape is unchanged after the call.
Follow-up
- The date-mismatch count is 2.1 percent on this extract. What late-arrival rule would you write for a daily metric, and how many days would you hold the number open?
- Duplicate event_id values appear only on the 'core_action_completed' event. What upstream cause would you check before deduplicating?
- Which of these rules should fire an alert at the pipeline, and which should only appear in a weekly review?
Write a query using SQL window functions to calculate a rolling averag…
Write a query using SQL window functions to calculate a rolling average of user activity.
Approach
- Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
- Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
Follow-up
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
- How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
Describe a situation where you had to optimize a complex query for per…
Describe a situation where you had to optimize a complex query for performance.
Approach
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
- Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
- State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Follow-up
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
- How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
Seven-day activation rate by weekly signup cohort
dim_user holds user_id, account_created_at_utc, is_internal. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action. A user is activated when core-action events fall on at least two distinct UTC dates inside [account_created_at_utc, account_created_at_utc + 7 days). Return, for the last twelve complete weekly signup cohorts, the cohort week, cohort size, activated users and the activation rate. Exclude is_internal users. Every signup in the cohort week stays in the denominator, including users who never returned.
Approach
- Start from dim_user as the denominator spine with is_internal = FALSE and DATE_TRUNC('week', account_created_at_utc) as the cohort key. Driving the query from the event table instead would silently condition on having events and delete the entire non-activating population.
- Join fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and a per-user bound, occurred_at_utc >= u.account_created_at_utc AND occurred_at_utc < u.account_created_at_utc + interval '7 days'. The bound is correlated to each user's own signup timestamp, not a single global date range.
- Aggregate per user with COUNT(DISTINCT occurred_at_utc::date) >= 2, then LEFT JOIN that back onto the spine and COALESCE the flag to FALSE so non-activators contribute a zero rather than vanishing.
- Restrict the published cohorts to those whose week ended at least eight days ago. A cohort younger than that has not finished its seven-day window, so its rate is mechanically low and reads as a decline.
- Roll up by summing the numerator and denominator per cohort week, and state the two-distinct-days threshold next to the number since it is a choice that re-bases the whole history if changed.
Worked solution 20 min
- Write the cohort spine and confirm its total equals the count of non-internal signups in the date range.
- Write the per-user distinct-active-days CTE with both interval bounds and inspect a handful of users manually.
- LEFT JOIN, COALESCE the flag, aggregate to cohort week.
- Apply the eight-day publication lag and drop the incomplete cohort.
- Re-run with a closed upper bound (<= +7 days) and note how many users change state, to show the boundary is doing work.
Follow-up
- Why two distinct days rather than one event? What happens to the published history if someone changes it to three?
- Invited seats and SSO-provisioned users get an account_created_at_utc at provisioning and may never sign in. Should they be in this denominator?
- The rate rose 3 points this week. What do you check before believing it?
How would you design a success metric for a new feature launch?
How would you design a success metric for a new feature launch?
Approach
- Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
- Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
Follow-up
- How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
- What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
A key product metric has suddenly dropped by 10%; walk me through your…
A key product metric has suddenly dropped by 10%; walk me through your diagnosis process.
Approach
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
- 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?
- What would you do if the primary metric and the guardrail moved in opposite directions?
How do you balance long-term user retention with short-term engagement…
How do you balance long-term user retention with short-term engagement goals?
Approach
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
- Restate the decision this analysis has to support, and who acts on the answer.
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
Follow-up
- Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
- How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you have encountered…
What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you have encountered in your past projects?
Approach
- State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
- Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
- Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Follow-up
- What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
- How would you handle interference between treated and control units?
How do you determine the required sample size for an A/B test?
How do you determine the required sample size for an A/B test?
Approach
- Name the randomisation unit first; it decides the variance and what the test can detect.
- Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
- Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
Follow-up
- What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
- What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
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.
Worked solution 40 min
- Assemble the training set: accounts with first_paid_at_utc at least twelve months old, their realised twelve-month cumulative net revenue, and the day-21 features.
- Fit on pre-change cohorts, evaluate on a held-out later cohort, and report both out-of-sample R-squared and predicted-versus-actual decile calibration.
- Write the surrogacy assumption as a falsifiable sentence, then write the specific mechanism in this treatment that violates it.
- Specify the direct arm readouts on fct_experiment_exposure with is_in_analysis_population = TRUE: revenue per exposed unit, cancel-within-first-period rate, and free-side signup and activation counts.
- Write the refusal rule with numbers attached, covering both the fit threshold and the free-side divergence case.
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?
Size every candidate cause of a trial-to-paid decline
Trial-to-paid conversion on weekly trial-start cohorts from fct_subscription_period reads 3.1 points below the trailing eight-week mean for the three most recent cohorts. Three things happened in that window: a pricing experiment reached 50% of new trials, a payment processor migration added settlement delay, and paid_search spend tripled. Using fct_subscription_period, fct_experiment_exposure and dim_user, rank the causes by their contribution in points of the headline, state the remainder, and give the decision you would take on Monday.
Approach
- Kill the immature cohorts first, because everything downstream is computed on them. The metric is lagged by the trial length plus a 14-day conversion window plus a settlement allowance, and a processor migration lengthens exactly that last term; recompute each cohort at a fixed cohort age rather than as of today, and confirm the newest cohort's value is still climbing day over day.
- Hold the experiment analysis to the exposed population. Join fct_experiment_exposure on unit_id with is_in_analysis_population = TRUE rather than reading an assignment log, then check the variant split for a sample-ratio mismatch before believing any effect at all. Contribution to the headline is the variant effect multiplied by the exposed share, which is not the same number as the variant effect.
- Decompose the cohort mix by dim_user.first_touch_channel using the same weight-times-rate arithmetic as any other mix question, so the paid_search increase is sized as a weight change at a measured conversion rate rather than asserted from the spend figure.
- Convert all three to points of the headline, sum them, and print the residual against the historical week-to-week standard deviation of the metric. If the residual is inside that band, say so and stop looking; if it is outside, name what you would investigate next rather than leaving it implied.
- Land the decision. Only one of the three is actionable on Monday, so state whether the experiment has accrued enough exposed units to stop at the pre-declared horizon, and state separately what the settlement-lag correction does to the published series and its lag rule.
Follow-up
- How do you choose the fixed cohort age, and what do you lose by choosing it too long?
- If the pricing variant is genuinely 1.2 points worse, does that settle whether to stop it? What else is on the other side of that decision?
- The trailing eight-week mean spans the processor migration. What is the right baseline instead?
Instead of guessing where the week should go, day one measures it under a fixed rubric and allocates the remaining hours in proportion to the gaps. The method is deliberately rigid: the allocation is written down before any studying starts and is not renegotiated when a topic turns out to be unpleasant.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Diagnostic, scored before you study anything
- Sit a 100-minute timed diagnostic in four blocks: 30 minutes of SQL across three prompts, 25 minutes of short-answer statistics, 25 minutes on one modelling or case prompt, and 20 minutes delivering one behavioural story aloud.
- Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct, and 0 is stuck, grading the output rather than how the attempt felt.
- Allocate the hours for days two to five roughly in proportion to 3 minus the score in each block, write the allocation down, and commit to not revising it midweek.
Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject
- Break the weakest area into five named sub-skills (for query work: grain control, window frames, date arithmetic, set logic with NULLs, and reading a query plan) and rate each one, so the rest of the week targets a sub-skill instead of a subject.
- Solve three problems chosen to sit just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
- Re-solve one of them from memory four hours later, on paper, with nothing open.
Deliverable: A five-item sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Largest gap: drill the blocking sub-skill
- Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what you practise is the pattern and not the puzzle.
- Write the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it: a ranking function over a column with ties, or a two-sample test on observations that are obviously dependent.
- Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.
Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04Second gap, plus maintenance on your strongest area
- Run the same sub-skill map and boundary protocol on the second-largest gap, compressed into half the day.
- Spend 25 timed minutes on your strongest area to stop it decaying, choosing the hardest problem you can still finish rather than an easy warm-up.
- Compare how the two areas fail: whether you lose time on recall, on setup, or on arithmetic, because the fix differs for each.
Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line diagnosis of how each area fails you.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05The gap that is not a skill
- Record yourself answering one technical and one behavioural prompt, then count two things in the playback: how many seconds before your first clarifying question, and how many sentences you started without knowing where they ended.
- Rewrite your three most-used stock phrases into shorter versions, and practise saying "I do not know, here is how I would find out" without softening it into a guess.
- Deliver one answer again with a hard 90-second limit to force structure before detail.
Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted improvement in time-to-first-question.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Retest under day-one conditions
- Sit the same 100-minute diagnostic structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
- Compare block by block, and for any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
- Write which single block you would still lose the offer on.
Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed next to the first, with one named remaining risk.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Full loop under interview conditions
- Run a 60-minute mock covering the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer instructed to interrupt and change direction.
- Write your recovery script for the moment you go blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
- Reduce the week to the rule statements you wrote, each with its preconditions attached, then say every one of them out loud without reading it and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive being interrupted.
Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.
Tell me about a time you had to pivot your technical approach based on…
Tell me about a time you had to pivot your technical approach based on stakeholder feedback.
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
- Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
- What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
Walk through an analysis you got wrong and what changed
Describe an analysis of yours that turned out to be wrong after somebody had already acted on it. You have four minutes. The account must name the defect mechanically, the join, the filter, the window or the identity key, rather than describing it as a communication problem. It must also say who did what because of the wrong number, how the error surfaced, how long it stood, and what control you put in place so that class of error cannot reach a decision again. Do not pick an error nobody acted on.
Approach
- Recognise what is being probed: whether you can be specific about your own failure without minimising it or performing contrition. The discriminator is whether the defect has a mechanism the listener could reproduce in their own warehouse.
- Choose the case by blast radius rather than by comfort. An error nobody acted on tests nothing, and picking one signals that you are managing the interview instead of answering it.
- Structure the account in six beats: the number, the decision it drove, the defect, the detection, the correction, the control. Keep the defect to one reproducible sentence, for example an inner join to fct_subscription_period that dropped accounts with no subscription row and so computed retention over payers only.
- State the direction of the bias, not only its existence. A filter or join that removes rows usually moves a metric predictably, and knowing which way shows you diagnosed the mechanism rather than patched the symptom.
- Be exact about detection and elapsed time. 'A colleague noticed' and 'the row-count assertion failed before publication' are different answers about the same organisation, and the second one is the one your control is supposed to produce next time.
- End on the control, its cost, whether it has fired since, and one thing it does not cover.
Follow-up
- What did the control cost, and has it fired since? If it never has, how do you know it works?
- How long did the wrong number stand before anyone questioned it, and what does that say about the review path it went through?
- What is the equivalent mistake you are most likely to make in this role, given the tables you would be working in?
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
Tell me about a time you had to pivot your technical approach based on stakeholder feedback.
- 02
Describe an analysis of yours that turned out to be wrong after somebody had already acted on it. You have four minutes. The account must name the defect mechanically, the join, the filter, the window or the identity key, rather than describing it as a communication problem. It must also say who did what because of the wrong number, how the error surfaced, how long it stood, and what control you put in place so that class of error cannot reach a decision again. Do not pick an error nobody acted on.
- 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 Shyena Tech Yarns interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Shyena Tech Yarns. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Shyena Tech Yarns has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How much time should I spend preparing for the interview?
Most successful candidates spend 2–4 weeks preparing. Focus on refreshing your knowledge of statistics and practicing SQL queries on complex datasets.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the most important thing to demonstrate during the interview?
Your structured approach to problem-solving. Candidates report that interviewers care more about how you think through an ambiguous problem than whether you reach the "perfect" answer immediately.
PracHub interview research ↗Will I be tested on machine learning?
Yes, though the focus is often on practical application rather than deep theory. Be ready to discuss the trade-offs of different models in a real-world product context.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the company culture like?
Candidates describe the culture as highly collaborative and data-driven. Candidates report that the team favors people who voice opinions backed by evidence and look for ways to improve the company's processes.
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