As a Data Scientist at Standard Chartered Bank, you occupy a pivotal role at the intersection of complex financial systems and advanced analytics. You are responsible for transforming raw, high-dimensional data into actionable insights that drive strategic decision-making across global banking operations. Whether you are working on Human-Centered AI, risk management, or operational efficiency, your work directly influences how the bank serves its customers and manages its internal talent and resources.
This role is both technically demanding and highly collaborative. You will engage with cross-functional teams, including product managers, software engineers, and business stakeholders, to solve real-world problems that scale to millions of transactions. Success in this position requires not only a mastery of statistical modeling and coding but also the ability to translate complex technical findings into clear, business-focused narratives. You will be operating in a high-stakes environment where rigor is expected, and your ability to design robust experiments and interpret metrics will be a defining factor in your success.
Screening Phase
reportedBecause the format is not fixed, prepare the reasoning rather than the ritual. Nearly every version of this round draws on the same underlying material: a design you can defend, a metric you can define exactly, an analysis whose assumptions you can state out loud. Only the wrapper changes, whether that is a take-home, a live case, a deep dive on past work, or a rough estimate on a whiteboard. Answers rehearsed to fit one shape stall the moment the shape differs. Practise naming the assumption behind a number, then saying how much the conclusion moves if that assumption is wrong.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your justification for a method survives the question 'why not the simpler thing', including when the simpler thing would have worked
- Precision under pressure: what exactly counts as an active user, a conversion or a success, over what window, with what exclusions
- Whether you carry an argument through to a recommendation instead of stopping at a list of tradeoffs
How to prepare
- For each project you plan to mention, write the metric definition in one sentence: numerator, denominator, time window, exclusions. Say it out loud once, because vagueness shows up in speech before it shows up on paper.
- Rehearse the same project at three lengths: two minutes, ten minutes, and a deep dive on one technical decision. Cutting live is harder than it sounds.
- For your headline result, write down what would have had to be true for it to be wrong, and how you ruled that out.
Technical Interviews
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
Final Directorial Rounds
reportedWhere a loop includes a partner from outside the data team, that conversation usually carries the same weight as the technical ones and gets the least preparation. The person opposite you will not follow a derivation and does not need to. They are working out whether having you involved would make their decisions better or slower. The failure mode is not being too technical. It is answering a question about a decision with a description of your method, leaving the translation to them. What they carry into the debrief is the sentence you handed them, not the analysis underneath it.
What to demonstrate
- Whether a statistical result arrives as something the partner could act on, with the one caveat that would change their decision kept and the rest left out
- Whether you can state what you need from their side, in their terms: instrumentation that does not exist yet, a definition they own, or a holdout they have to agree to
- Whether uncertainty is given as a range someone can plan against, rather than as hedging that invites them to ignore the result
- Whether you ask what decision is actually on the table before explaining anything
How to prepare
- Take a result you know well and write the version for someone who stops reading after one sentence, then the three-minute version, and check the short one is not the long one with the qualifications stripped out
- For a past project, list everything you asked a non-technical partner for and how you phrased it, then rewrite each ask so it names what goes unmeasured without it
- Practise saying where a result does not apply, out loud, in one sentence that a partner could repeat accurately to someone else
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Reading the most recent months of fraud and dispute rates as final
Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, and several reason codes run considerably longer, so the disputes belonging to a recent transaction month have simply not been filed yet. Any chart attributed by transaction date therefore slopes down at the right edge regardless of what is happening. The fix is to report only matured cohorts, or to apply development factors estimated from completed months and to show the estimate as an estimate.
Using written premium as the denominator of a loss ratio
Premium is written at inception and earned pro rata across the exposure period, so in a growing book written premium runs ahead of earned premium and the loss ratio comes out too low, with the error reversing when the book shrinks. The numerator has the mirror-image problem if it omits incurred-but-not-reported reserves, since recent accident periods then look profitable twice over. Both sides must refer to the same exposure period, which is what an accident-period view at a fixed development age enforces.
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.
Dropping rows with missing values without naming the mechanism
Say whether the values are missing at random, missing by a known process, or missing in a way that depends on the outcome, and handle them accordingly. Deleting incomplete rows silently redefines the population whenever missingness correlates with what you are measuring.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
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.
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?
Implement accident-quarter loss ratio at twelve months development
fct_policy_period_monthly arrives as a stack of month-end snapshots: each row carries valuation_month alongside as_of_month, policy_id, product_line, written_premium_minor, earned_premium_minor, paid_loss_minor, case_reserve_minor, ibnr_reserve_minor and loss_adjustment_expense_minor. Compute the accident-quarter loss ratio at exactly 12 months of development: incurred losses over earned premium, both taken from rows whose as_of_month falls in the accident quarter, read from the snapshot 12 months after that quarter closes. Report quarters that cannot reach that age as incomplete rather than dropping them.
Approach
- Derive accident_quarter from as_of_month, then define the evaluation snapshot per quarter as valuation_month equal to the quarter's final month plus twelve months. Every figure in the ratio comes from that one snapshot, not from whichever snapshot happens to be newest.
- Numerator is paid_loss_minor plus case_reserve_minor plus ibnr_reserve_minor over the accident quarter's rows in that snapshot. Loss adjustment expense may be included or not, but the choice applies to every quarter and is named in an output column.
- Denominator is earned_premium_minor over the same rows. Written premium is booked in full at inception, so in a growing book it runs ahead of earned premium and drags the ratio down, with the error reversing when the book shrinks.
- Left-join the full quarter list against available valuation months so a quarter with no 12-month snapshot yields status incomplete and a null ratio, instead of disappearing and shortening the series without saying so.
- Split by product_line, since both the loss ratio level and the speed of development differ by line, and a blended series moves with mix as much as with experience.
Worked solution 30 min
- Add accident_quarter and a target_valuation column equal to the quarter end plus twelve months.
- Filter rows to those where valuation_month equals the row's target_valuation, then assert each accident_quarter has exactly one distinct valuation_month left.
- Aggregate incurred and earned premium by accident_quarter and product_line and take the ratio.
- Reindex against the full list of accident quarters and product lines, marking rows with no matching snapshot as incomplete with a null ratio.
- Recompute one quarter by hand on a five-policy subset and confirm it matches.
Follow-up
- The most recent complete quarter came in four points better than the one before. What do you check before calling it an improvement?
- How would you estimate the 12-month figure for a quarter that is only 6 months developed, and how would you label the estimate?
- Why can an expense ratio legitimately use a different denominator from the loss ratio in the same presentation?
Measure calibration of a twelve-month default probability from scratch
fct_loan_application gives application_id, model_pd_12m, model_version, decision, funded_at and loan_id. fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, months_on_book, days_past_due and charge_off_flag. Define the outcome as ever 90 or more days past due, or charged off, by months_on_book = 12. Without sklearn or scipy, build an equal-count binned reliability table, the expected calibration error, the Brier score and its reliability, resolution and uncertainty components, and report the residual the binned identity leaves behind. Restrict to cohorts that have actually reached 12 months on book.
Approach
- Build the label first and name the population it covers out loud: only funded loans have outcomes, so this measures calibration on the approved population. The declined region is unmeasured, and no binning scheme repairs that.
- Restrict to applications whose loans have reached months_on_book = 12. A cohort observed at 8 months has a mechanically lower default rate and will read as systematic over-prediction that is really just immaturity.
- Bin by equal count, deciles of model_pd_12m through a rank-based cut, not equal width. The PD distribution is heavily right-skewed, so equal-width bins put most of the mass in the first bin and leave the risky bins with single-digit counts whose observed rates mean nothing.
- Per bin compute n, mean predicted, observed rate, and the binomial standard error sqrt(o(1-o)/n) so a gap can be read against noise. ECE is the count-weighted mean absolute gap between mean predicted and observed.
- Compute Brier directly as the mean squared error, then reliability = sum of n_k (pbar_k - obar_k)^2 over N, resolution = sum of n_k (obar_k - obar)^2 over N, uncertainty = obar(1 - obar). Report residual = Brier - (reliability - resolution + uncertainty). That identity is exact only for discrete forecasts, so with binned continuous scores the residual is the within-bin spread of the score; a large one means the bins are too wide to support the decomposition.
- Split by model_version. A mixed-version population can look well calibrated in aggregate while each version is biased in opposite directions.
Follow-up
- AUC is unchanged after a population shift but the reliability curve has moved. What happened, and what do you do about it?
- How would you recalibrate without retraining, and what would you check afterwards?
- The top decile shows observed default well above predicted. Is that a calibration problem or a policy problem?
Can you walk me through how you would join multiple tables to perform …
Can you walk me through how you would join multiple tables to perform a deep-dive analysis on user engagement?
Approach
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
- Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
- State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Follow-up
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
If you are given a dataset that is messy and contains several null val…
If you are given a dataset that is messy and contains several null values, how do you start cleaning and analyzing it?
Approach
- Handle the rows that do not match: a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check is usually the question.
- Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Follow-up
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
- How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
How would you structure a SQL query using window functions to identify…
How would you structure a SQL query using window functions to identify consecutive trends in customer transaction data?
Approach
- Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
- State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
- 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?
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.
Worked solution 45 min
- CTE ranks: an inline VALUES mapping of the five delinquency_bucket values to ranks 0 through 4, joined onto the monthly rows. Rank 5 is not in the map; it is assigned during classification.
- CTE leads: add LEAD(as_of_month_end), LEAD(bucket_rank) and LEAD(charge_off_flag) partitioned by loan_id ordered by as_of_month_end.
- CTE classified: derive next_rank as CASE WHEN next_charge_off_flag THEN 5 ELSE next_bucket_rank END, then a CASE expression producing exactly one label per loan-month — exited when the next month end is null or is not the current month end plus one month, otherwise rolled_forward / cured / stayed by comparing next_rank to bucket_rank.
- Aggregate to from_month and from_bucket with COUNT(*) and four FILTER counts, then compute roll_rate as rolled_forward over accounts with a numeric cast.
- Assert the exhaustiveness invariant in a final HAVING or a separate verification query before trusting any number.
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.
How would you design the product metrics for a new internal talent man…
How would you design the product metrics for a new internal talent management tool?
Approach
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
- Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
- Decompose the metric into the rates that drive it, and say which one you would check first.
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?
Let’s say you are monitoring a key performance indicator and notice a …
Let’s say you are monitoring a key performance indicator and notice a sudden metric drop; what is your systematic approach to diagnosing the root cause?
Approach
- 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.
- Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
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?
What steps do you take to ensure an experiment is unbiased and results…
What steps do you take to ensure an experiment is unbiased and results are actionable?
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.
- 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?
- What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you encounter when s…
What are the most common experimentation pitfalls you encounter when setting up a new feature test?
Approach
- Name the guardrails that would stop a launch even on a positive primary result.
- State the primary metric and the minimum effect worth shipping, then size the test.
- Decide the analysis before seeing data, including how long it runs and when you look.
Follow-up
- What would you conclude if the result is positive but the test is underpowered?
- What would you do if you could not randomise at all?
Design an authorization approval rate a team cannot game
A payments team is given authorization approval rate as its quarterly target, defined as approved authorizations over all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. Using auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, auth_result, is_reversal, parent_auth_id, channel, issuer_country and requested_at, list three ways the team can raise that number without a single additional customer purchase succeeding. Then write the definition you would put on the dashboard instead, with its exclusions, and name the one guardrail you would always read beside it.
Approach
- Enumerate the rows in the table that are not purchases: zero-amount account verifications, reversals (is_reversal = true), incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null) and merchant retries of a declined attempt. Each is a lever on the numerator or the denominator that no customer would ever notice.
- Name the mix levers. Recurring and card-present traffic approve at higher rates than ecommerce and cross-border, so routing changes or a marketing push into an easy channel move the blended rate with no change in decisioning quality at all.
- Work the retry arithmetic rather than asserting it. A declined purchase that is retried three times and succeeds on the fourth contributes one approval and four denominator rows, which is below a healthy blended rate, so suppressing retries raises the published number while some purchases that would have succeeded on a retry now simply fail.
- Replace the definition: dollar-weighted, retry chains collapsed to a single attempt per (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) within a 15-minute window, excluding reversals, zero-amount verifications and incremental authorizations, with all amounts converted into one reporting currency before summing because amount_minor is in the minor unit of transaction_currency and that unit is not always two decimals. Cut by channel and issuer_country so mix shift shows up as mix shift.
- Guardrail: net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months with at least 120 days of dispute maturity. The fastest way to approve more is to decline less risk, and that bill arrives two to four months later.
Worked solution 25 min
- Compute the naive rate for one week: approved rows over all rows.
- Apply the exclusions one at a time (zero-amount, is_reversal, parent_auth_id not null), recording the rate after each, so you can say what each row type was worth to the headline number.
- Add a retry-collapsing CTE keyed on (card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor) over a 15-minute window, keeping the last attempt in each chain, and recompute.
- Recompute dollar-weighted in a single reporting currency, then split by channel and issuer_country.
- Write the final one-line definition with its exclusions, plus the guardrail sentence.
Follow-up
- The blended rate is flat but ecommerce cross-border fell 200 basis points. How do you present that?
- Why weight by amount rather than by count, and when does the weighted version mislead?
- Your 15-minute retry window merges two genuine purchases of the same amount at the same merchant. How would you bound that error?
Manual review rate doubles on the day two changes ship
Manual review rate on fct_loan_application, defined as decided_by = 'manual' over decisions in ('approve','decline'), stepped from 9 to 18 percent on a single day. That day a new model_version went live, and the same release changed which referral paths are recorded as manual. Columns: submitted_at, channel, bureau_score, model_pd_12m, model_version, policy_rule_hits, decision, decided_by, decision_at. Attribute the step across definition, model and population, with a number against each.
Approach
- Establish the shape before the cause. A definition or code change produces a step at the deploy timestamp; a population change produces a ramp. Plot at hourly granularity either side of the release and read which one this is.
- Dual-run the definition. Recompute the metric under both the old and the new recording rules across several months of history. If the historical series under the new rule sits near 18 percent throughout, that part of the step is definitional and should be restated, not investigated.
- Hold the model constant and decompose the residual by policy_rule_hits identifier. A referral rule keyed to a score threshold shows its own step, and naming the rule is what makes the finding actionable to the policy owner.
- Test the score, not the applicants. Compare model_pd_12m distributions by model_version on the same applications where shadow scores exist; otherwise compare adjacent weeks with a population stability index, treating the customary 0.1 and 0.25 marks as heuristics rather than tests, and assess calibration separately from ranking.
- Test the applicants, not the score. Compare channel mix, bureau_score distribution and null-bureau share across the boundary. If those are stable, population is not a driver and should be reported as approximately zero rather than left unquantified.
- Deliver three components that sum to the observed step, each with the team that owns it.
Follow-up
- If the new model is better calibrated, is a higher referral rate the correct outcome or a threshold nobody retuned?
- How would you have caught the recording change before it reached the dashboard?
- What is the swap set here, and which swap group would you inspect first?
For someone who can already write the query and train the model but stalls when asked what to measure or whether a change is worth making. Metric definition and case structure come first; the technical work is kept as maintenance rather than the centre of the week.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Metric anatomy
- For three products you use daily, write one primary metric, two input metrics that plausibly move it, and one guardrail that would catch a cheap way of moving the primary at the cost of the product.
- For one of them, specify the metric precisely enough that two analysts would return the same number: numerator, denominator, unit of observation, time window, and how returning and deleted accounts are treated.
- Pick a ratio metric and write what happens to it when the denominator shrinks for reasons unrelated to the numerator, with a concrete example of that happening.
Deliverable: A one-page metric tree for one product, with the primary metric written as an unambiguous spec.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Diagnosing a drop without guessing
- Take the prompt "weekly active users fell 8 percent week over week" and write the segmentation plan before proposing any cause: platform, region, tenure cohort, acquisition channel, and whether the movement sits in the numerator or in a changed denominator.
- List the instrumentation failures that manufacture fake drops (a client release that stopped firing an event, a bot filter change, a shifted date boundary or timezone) and write the query that rules out each one.
- Rehearse stating the boring explanations first, seasonality and day-of-week composition, before reaching for a product cause.
Deliverable: A drop-diagnosis checklist short enough to recite from memory in under a minute.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Should we build it
- Take a feature idea and write it as a bet: what you believe is true, what would have to be true for it to pay off, the metric that would confirm it, and the effect size that would justify the engineering cost.
- Size the opportunity top-down and bottom-up, then reconcile the two numbers in writing instead of quoting whichever is friendlier.
- Write the counter-metric that would make you kill the feature even if it wins on the primary metric.
Deliverable: A one-page product memo ending in a decision rather than a list of considerations.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04The places aggregate numbers lie
- Construct a Simpson's paradox numerically: two segments where the treatment wins within each segment yet loses overall, and identify the shift in segment weights that causes it.
- Take a heavy right-tailed quantity such as revenue per user and write why the mean is the wrong summary, which percentile you would report instead, and what a moving mean with a stable median tells you.
- Write your definition of a session for the product from day one, then name two real behaviours it misclassifies.
Deliverable: One page holding a worked Simpson's paradox table and a session definition with its two known failure cases.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Technical maintenance, aimed at metrics
- Solve four timed SQL prompts that all end in a ratio metric, so the question of grain stays live in every answer.
- Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a proportion on a small sample, and state why the normal approximation is unreliable when either np or n(1 minus p) falls below roughly 10, along with which interval you would use instead.
- Take one metric from your day-one tree, write the query that computes it correctly, then write the query that computes it wrong in the most plausible way and explain how you would notice.
Deliverable: Four solved prompts plus a matched correct and plausible-wrong query for one metric.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Turning engineering work into data science stories
- Write three project stories as situation, decision, trade-off, outcome, each carrying one number and one thing you got wrong.
- For the story you will lead with, prepare an answer to "what would you do differently" that names a decision you made, not a constraint you were handed.
- Practise the sentence that reframes a systems project as a question project: the question the work answered, ahead of the pipeline it shipped.
Deliverable: Three written stories with the lead story delivered aloud and timed under four minutes.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Mock case and gap list
- Run a 40-minute mock case with someone playing a product manager who pushes back on your metric choice, and record it.
- Listen back and mark every moment you proposed a solution before the success metric existed.
- Rewrite those moments as the question you should have asked, and rehearse the first 90 seconds of the case until scoping comes before solving.
Deliverable: A recorded case plus a rewritten opening 90 seconds.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Half of this section is about translation. Be ready to describe how you explained a result to someone who did not want the method, only the implication, and what you did when the simplified version started being repeated in a way that overstated it. Correcting your own simplification is a strong beat.
Explain the concept of statistical significance to a non-technical sta…
Explain the concept of statistical significance to a non-technical stakeholder.
Approach
- Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
- Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
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?
Defend a vintage finding that contradicts the portfolio dashboard
The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.
Approach
- Reconcile before you contradict: show that aggregating your vintage table along the calendar diagonal reproduces the published blended series, so the disagreement is about age mix rather than about data quality.
- Make the mechanism arithmetic rather than rhetorical: a loan cannot reach 90 days past due before it is 90 days old, so rapid origination growth shifts weight onto young months-on-book where the rate is structurally near zero.
- Show every vintage rather than a selected pair, all indexed at months_on_book equal to 12, with cohort sizes printed beside each curve so nobody can claim the divergence rests on a thin cohort.
- Handle restructuring explicitly, because restructured_flag resets days_past_due: count each loan on its worst pre-restructure state, or recent vintages will look better than they are.
- Close on the decision rather than the chart: state what the divergence implies for the cutoff or the channel mix, and state in advance what evidence would make you withdraw the claim.
Follow-up
- Two cohorts differ at month 12. How do you separate a seasoning effect from a genuine credit-quality effect?
- Someone argues the recent vintages are simply a broker-channel mix shift. How do you test that, and what would confirm it?
- 01
Explain the concept of statistical significance to a non-technical stakeholder.
- 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
The lending dashboard shows blended 90-plus days-past-due falling for four consecutive quarters while originations grew 60 percent. Using fct_loan_performance_monthly, you build a vintage view keyed on origination_month by months_on_book and find the three most recent vintages are worse than their predecessors at the same age. The business lead presents that dashboard weekly and pushes back hard, suggesting you picked favourable cohorts. You get one meeting and the vintage table. Present the finding so it survives the cherry-picking objection and ends in a decision.
Is this an official Standard Chartered Bank interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Standard Chartered Bank. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Standard Chartered Bank has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How difficult are the technical interviews?
The difficulty is balanced; while you will face challenging technical questions, the primary goal of the interviewer is to understand your thinking process. Focus on clarity and logical structure rather than just reaching the "correct" answer.
PracHub interview research ↗How much time should I spend preparing?
Most successful candidates dedicate several weeks to reviewing statistical concepts and practicing SQL window functions. Do not underestimate the need to practice explaining your past projects clearly and concisely.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the culture like for Data Scientists?
The culture is professional and project-focused. You will be expected to work with a high degree of autonomy while remaining highly collaborative with your cross-functional partners.
PracHub interview research ↗How long does the hiring process take?
The timeline varies, but candidates should expect a multi-stage process that can take several weeks. Maintaining consistent communication with your recruiter is key to navigating the process smoothly.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Data Scientist practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
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.