Sirius Digital Services · Software Engineer
Updated · 2026-09-24

Sirius Digital Services Software Engineer
Interview Questions & Guide 2026

THE 60-SECOND BRIEF

As a Software Engineer at Sirius Digital Services, you will operate at the intersection of complex industrial systems and digital transformation. This role is not merely about writing code; it is about engineering robust, scalable solutions that power critical infrastructure, process controls, and internal enterprise architectures. You will contribute to projects that directly influence the operational efficiency of Sirius Digital Services' facilities and the reliability of its digital services.

Ask how many rounds there are and what each one is before you plan your weeks, because the composition is what your hours should follow. A loop with three coding rounds and one short design conversation deserves a different split from the reverse, and whoever schedules it will usually say plainly which it is.

Sirius Digital Services candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Evolve APIs without breaking pinned SDK clientsMake every write idempotent under client retriesBound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits

38 min read

Browse Software Engineer questions

See the practice prompts

13Practice promptsAcross five skill areas
3With worked solutionsIncluded in the practice prompts

As a Software Engineer at Sirius Digital Services, you will operate at the intersection of complex industrial systems and digital transformation. This role is not merely about writing code; it is about engineering robust, scalable solutions that power critical infrastructure, process controls, and internal enterprise architectures. You will contribute to projects that directly influence the operational efficiency of Sirius Digital Services' facilities and the reliability of its digital services.

Whether you are working on patch management, process controls, or Microsoft 365 integrations, your work supports the company's business continuity. Candidates report that the company looks for engineers who thrive on solving multi-disciplinary problems, bridging the gap between hardware-level requirements and software-defined workflows. This role is highly strategic, offering you the opportunity to influence how Sirius Digital Services scales its technical footprint across diverse geographic locations.

01

Technical Screening

reported

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

  • In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
  • In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
  • Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

  • Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
  • Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
  • For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first
PracHub interview research ↗
02

Deeper-Dive Interviews

reported

An unlabelled round is first an information problem, and the cheapest information is free. Whoever schedules it can usually tell you how long it runs, who will be in the room and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and in what environment, and whether anything is being sent beforehand. Ask in writing so the answer is on record, then prepare for the two or three formats those answers still leave open instead of betting on one. What separates a strong candidate is not guessing right; it is having an opening that works whichever one it turns out to be.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether you can start work from an ambiguous brief, since tolerating a vague scope without stalling is the same thing the job asks for
  • Whether the questions you asked beforehand were ones that change your preparation, such as duration, medium and who is joining, rather than ones whose answers you could not have acted on
  • Whether you adapt when the round turns out to be something other than what you were told, instead of spending the first ten minutes visibly recalibrating

How to prepare

  • Send one short scheduling message asking four things: how long, who is joining and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and where, and whether to prepare anything in advance. Treat a vague reply as real information, since it means the round is loosely structured and you will be shaping it yourself.
  • Write one opening that works in any of the formats still open: restate in your own words what you have been asked to do, then ask which of two directions is more useful to them. Say it aloud until it stops sounding recited.
  • Set up for the two most likely formats before the call starts, with a blank editor in the language you would choose and a shared document you can type into, so a format surprise costs you nothing in the first minutes
PracHub interview research ↗
03

Team Interaction

reported

When a round has no standard shape, it is often there because something is still open: an area no earlier conversation reached, a round where the signal came out mixed, or a decision someone is not ready to make alone. Work out which by going back over what each earlier round actually covered rather than how it felt, and arrive able to give evidence on that point without being asked twice. Weak answers replay the loop's earlier material at the same depth. Strong ones go a level deeper and stay consistent with what you already said.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether your account of a project matches the one you gave earlier in the loop, since what you said before may be available to whoever runs this round
  • Whether you can go a level deeper on something already covered, reaching the decision and its alternatives rather than repeating the summary
  • Whether you state your own uncertainty accurately, including parts of a system you did not build and decisions you inherited, instead of claiming even ownership across all of it
  • Whether you can answer a question you handled poorly earlier by naming what you missed, rather than delivering a polished second version as if the first had not happened

How to prepare

  • Reconstruct the loop on one page: for each round, the questions you were asked and the answer you actually gave, not the better one you thought of afterwards. The gaps on that page are your best available guess at why this round exists.
  • Take the two claims you made earlier that carry the most weight and assemble the backing for each: the measurement, the date, what broke, the decision you would make differently now.
  • Write down the three facts about your work that must not drift between tellings, such as team size, timeline and your own role, and check your stories against that list rather than trusting recall under pressure
PracHub interview research ↗

PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.

01

Paginating a growing table with limit and offset

Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.

02

Serialising a tenant's writes through select ... for update on a single counter row

It is the first change that makes a counter correct, and it caps that tenant's write throughput at roughly one divided by the lock hold time. A transaction that takes the lock, makes a network call and then commits holds it for the entire round trip: at 2 ms that is about 500 writes per second for the whole tenant, and the largest tenants are exactly the ones that exceed it. The damage then spreads, because every waiter holds a database connection while it queues, so one hot tenant drains the shared pool and the symptom presents as a site-wide latency incident rather than as a lock problem. The repairs are to shrink the critical section to a single statement, to shard the counter into per-(tenant, hour) or per-(tenant, bucket) rows and sum on read, or to batch in memory and flush periodically while accepting the bounded loss that batching implies.

03

Assuming the bug is in the framework

Suspect your own code first: read the stack trace top to bottom, check which versions are actually installed rather than which ones you believe are, and reproduce in isolation before blaming a library that thousands of people run daily. When the fault really is upstream, you need that minimal reproduction to say so credibly anyway.

04

Retrying a write that is not safe to repeat

A timeout tells you nothing about whether the server applied the write, so a blind retry of a create or a charge can duplicate it. Either make the operation idempotent, with a caller-supplied key the server deduplicates on or a conditional update, or do not retry it; and use exponential backoff with jitter so the retries of many clients do not synchronise into a second outage.

Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.

9 technical prompts3 include a worked solution

Locate a billing reconciliation gap without rescanning ninety million events

hard
reconciliationdimensional-bisectionwatermarkshypothesis-testing

A tenant's sealed invoice total is 0.4% below the sum of its raw usage_event rows for the period. That tenant has 90 million events over 30 days in a table partitioned daily on ingested_at, and its rollups carry source_max_ingested_at, revision and sealed_at. Recomputing all 30 days from raw is correct, and you are not going to do it. Give the procedure that locates the divergent (workspace, sku, hour) cell, the cost of each probe, and the one query you run before any of it.

Approach
  1. Run the free query first. Sum raw quantity for the period restricted to ingested_at <= source_max_ingested_at of the sealed rollups, and compare that against the unrestricted sum. The rollup stores the watermark precisely so this can be answered without a scan. If the whole 0.4% sits above the watermark, nothing is broken: it is late data, it becomes an adjustment line, and the investigation ends in one query.
  2. Only if the gap survives that test do you bisect, and you bisect by dimension rather than by rows. Compare 30 per-day totals, then inside the offending day compare the 6 SKUs, then the workspaces, then the 24 hours. That is roughly 30 + 6 + W + 24 grouped probes, each an indexed range scan over one daily partition for one tenant, against O(N) per attempt for the naive re-fold.
  3. Quantify why naive is not merely slow but unusable mid-incident: at a generous 200,000 rows/second sequential, 90 million rows is about 7.5 minutes per attempt, you will want ten attempts, and every one competes for I/O on the same partitions live ingest is writing. The diagnostic worsens the backlog it is diagnosing.
  4. Before fetching each comparison, state what it would look like under each hypothesis. Two adjacent hours off by equal and opposite amounts is occurred_at versus ingested_at bucketing. A whole day offset by exactly N hours is a timezone applied at the wrong layer. A gap confined to one SKU in one workspace is an environment filter. The same (tenant_id, idempotency_key) present in two ingested_day partitions is the dedup horizon losing a retry that crossed midnight.
  5. Make the next bisection cheap by storing the aggregate you keep recomputing. A per-(tenant_id, ingested_day) count and quantity checksum turns step two from thirty probes into one read, and it is the same number the reconciliation job already produces.
  6. Whatever you find, the sealed period does not change value. The correction is an adjustment line pointing at the line it reverses, carrying its own source_rollup_watermark, because the original invoice is the evidence of what the customer was charged.
Follow-up
  • The gap is 0.4% in one direction on one day and 0.4% the other way the next day. What does that shape rule in, and what does it rule out?
  • How do you distinguish a duplicate from a restatement, given revision and recomputed_at on the rollup?
  • Ingest is still running while you investigate. What makes your two numbers comparable at all?

Seal an hour under late data with bounded memory

hard
watermarkslate-dataquantile-sketchconditional-write

Metering ingest reads 256 partitions at 10,000 to 40,000 events/second. Events carry occurred_at and ingested_at, and during a producer replay the gap between them is hours. Seal each UTC hour once no more than 50 parts per million of that hour's eventual quantity can still arrive, using memory that does not grow with the size of the replay. Define the watermark, the lateness parameter and how you measure it, the structure holding open hours, and the write that performs the seal. State what an idle partition does to your watermark.

Approach
  1. Two clocks, two jobs. Bucket by occurred_at, because that is the hour the customer is billed for, and advance the watermark on ingested_at, because that is what the fold has consumed and what source_max_ingested_at records. Conflating them is what makes late data invisible.
  2. The global watermark is the min over partitions of each partition's committed ingested_at, not the max: the fold is trustworthy only as far as the slowest partition. The consequence is that one idle partition pins the watermark forever and nothing seals, so an idle partition must promote its watermark to wall clock after a stated idle timeout, and that timeout becomes a correctness parameter, because a partition that is slow rather than idle gets sealed past.
  3. Choose the lateness L from the measured distribution of ingested_at - occurred_at, weighted by quantity rather than by event count. The target is 50 ppm of the hour's quantity, and a replay is rare in events while carrying disproportionate mass, so an event-weighted quantile picks an L that is comfortably wrong at exactly the moment it matters.
  4. Measure that quantile in bounded memory. A Greenwald-Khanna summary gives epsilon-approximate quantiles in O((1/epsilon) log(epsilon n)) space; a t-digest costs more per merge but has relative error that tightens at the tails, which is the half of the distribution you are reading at p99.99. Keep a separate summary per tenant class, because one tenant's batch importer is not the population.
  5. Hold open hours in a min-heap keyed by hour_start. When the watermark advances, pop every hour with hour_end + L < W and seal it: O(log H_open) per advance and O(1) amortised per event to touch its bucket. Memory is open hours multiplied by distinct (tenant, workspace, sku) keys, so cap the number of simultaneously open hours and spill the oldest into usage_rollup_hourly as status='open' with a revision bump. While an hour is open the row is upsertable, so the store is your overflow.
  6. The seal itself is a conditional write: update ... set status='sealed', sealed_at=now() where status='open' returning .... Two sealers race on every restart, and the loser must see zero rows and stop rather than write a second value. After the seal, an event for that hour is not an upsert but an adjustment, and source_max_ingested_at is what proves it arrived afterwards.
Follow-up
  • A replay starts during the sealing window for a period you are about to close. What do you do, and what is the customer-visible consequence of each option?
  • Your measured quantity-weighted p99.99 lateness is six hours and the invoice must be issued at 02:00 UTC on the first. How do you reconcile those two numbers?
  • How would you detect that L has drifted before it costs you an hour's quantity?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

easyWorked solution
parsinghmacconstant-time-comparereplay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach
  1. Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
  2. Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
  3. Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
  4. Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
  5. Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
  6. Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.
Worked solution 15 min
  1. Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
  2. Implement the parser to return {t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missing t, a duplicate t, any v1 that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs.
  3. Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsed v1, and OR the results with no early exit.
  4. Test with a valid signature; the same body with t moved 400 seconds into the past; the same body with t 400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknown v2= alongside a valid v1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.
EXPECTED RESULTThe valid case accepts. Both out-of-tolerance cases reject, including the future one. The unknown `v2` field is ignored and the `v1` still verifies. The re-serialised body fails, which is correct and is exactly why the raw bytes must be retained.
Follow-up
  • The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
  • A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
  • How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.

Small steps. Visible outcomes.0 / 7 completed
ONE WEEK · YOUR PACE

Prepare, practise & reflect

One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.

0 / 7 done
01Coding, one pass at shallow depth
  • Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
  • For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
  • Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.

Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
02Design, one pass at shallow depth
  • Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
  • After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
  • Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.

Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
03Fundamentals and the practical rounds
  • Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
  • Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
  • Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.

Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
04The rounds that are about you, and the map
  • Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
  • Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
  • Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.

Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
05First chosen area, to the depth you skipped
  • Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
  • After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
  • Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.

Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
06Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed
  • Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
  • Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
  • Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.

Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
07Reassemble the loop
  • Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
  • Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
  • Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.

Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.

Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗

Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.

Team size, service count and tickets closed say very little. Seniority shows in the decision you owned: what you chose not to build, which constraint you traded away, whose objection you had to resolve before anything could move. A large project where you executed someone else's plan is a small story.

How do you balance the need for rapid feature delivery with the necess…

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

How do you balance the need for rapid feature delivery with the necessity of robust system stability?

Approach
  1. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?

Tell us about a time you had to diagnose a system failure under tight …

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

Tell us about a time you had to diagnose a system failure under tight deadlines.

Approach
  1. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
  2. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Follow-up
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?
  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?

Can you describe your experience with Microsoft 365 architecture and a…

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

Can you describe your experience with Microsoft 365 architecture and administration?

Approach
  1. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  2. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
  3. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Follow-up
  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Describe a situation where you had to explain a complex technical issu…

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

Describe a situation where you had to explain a complex technical issue to a non-technical stakeholder.

Approach
  1. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
  2. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Follow-up
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?
  • 01

    How do you balance the need for rapid feature delivery with the necessity of robust system stability?

  • 02

    Tell us about a time you had to diagnose a system failure under tight deadlines.

  • 03

    Can you describe your experience with Microsoft 365 architecture and administration?

  • 04

    Describe a situation where you had to explain a complex technical issue to a non-technical stakeholder.

PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
Is this an official Sirius Digital Services interview guide?

No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at Sirius Digital Services. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Sirius Digital Services has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.

PracHub interview research ↗
How long should I spend preparing for my interviews?

Plan to dedicate at least two weeks to focused preparation, reviewing both your past technical projects and the core technologies relevant to the specific role you are applying for.

PracHub interview research ↗
What differentiates a successful candidate at Sirius Digital Services?

The most successful candidates are those who demonstrate a "systems-thinking" approach—they understand how their code impacts the broader business and are proactive in identifying ways to improve operational reliability.

PracHub interview research ↗
Will the interview process be technical or behavioral?

It is a blend of both; you will face intense technical problem-solving sessions alongside behavioral interviews designed to assess how you contribute to team culture and handle complex project environments.

PracHub interview research ↗
Is there a specific coding language or stack I should focus on?

Focus on the stack listed in the job description for your specific role; however, candidates report that the ability to learn new tools quickly counts for more than expertise in any single, narrow technology.

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.