A Data Scientist at Synchrony plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of consumer finance. As one of the nation's premier financial services companies, Synchrony relies heavily on data-driven decision-making to power its massive network of retail credit cards, store cards, and promotional financing programs. In this role, you are not just building models in isolation; you are directly influencing credit risk assessment, fraud prevention, marketing personalization, and customer lifetime value.
The impact of your work is felt by millions of active cardholders and thousands of partner merchant locations. By leveraging massive transactional, behavioral, and demographic datasets, you will design predictive models that balance risk and reward. Whether you are optimizing a credit underwriting algorithm or detecting sophisticated fraudulent behavior in real-time, your insights will directly steer the strategic direction of the company's core financial products.
Working at Synchrony offers a unique blend of financial services stability and modern technological innovation. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams of engineers, product managers, and risk analysts to deploy models into production environments. The scale of the data and the immediate business impact make this role both highly challenging and exceptionally rewarding for data scientists who thrive on solving complex, real-world financial problems.
Preparation focus
editorialNo round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.
What to demonstrate
- Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
- Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method
How to prepare
- Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
- Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove
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.
Assuming a model is fair because protected attributes are not among its inputs
Postcode, device, tenure, income proxies and even transaction patterns correlate with protected characteristics, so a model can produce a disparate outcome without ever reading the attribute. Credit decisions additionally carry an explainability obligation in many jurisdictions, since a denial has to be accompanied by its principal reasons, which constrains model form and feature engineering rather than being a reporting afterthought. Treating fairness testing and reason-code generation as design constraints from the first model version is far cheaper than retrofitting them to a deployed one.
Ignoring interference between units in a marketplace experiment
Ask whether one unit's treatment can change another unit's outcome through shared inventory, a matching pool, a social graph or a common budget. Where it can, randomise at a level that contains the spillover, such as region or time slice, and say explicitly what that costs you in statistical power.
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.
Build a vintage delinquency table without pivot or unstack
fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, origination_month, months_on_book, days_past_due, charge_off_flag and restructured_flag. Produce a DataFrame with one row per origination_month and columns for months_on_book 0 through 12, each cell holding the share of that vintage's funded loans that had ever reached 90 or more days past due, or charge-off, by that age. You may not use pivot, pivot_table, crosstab or unstack. Cells for ages a cohort has not yet reached must be NaN rather than zero.
Approach
- Define the per-row indicator as days_past_due >= 90 or charge_off_flag, then take a cumulative maximum of it per loan ordered by months_on_book, because the metric is reached-by-age-m, not in-that-state-at-age-m.
- Deal with restructuring before the cumulative max. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a restructured loan re-enters at current and, without the cumulative maximum carrying its pre-restructure worst state, reads as a cure.
- Fix the denominator once as the count of distinct loan_id per origination_month across the whole cohort. Prepaid and charged-off loans stop producing rows, so a denominator recomputed at each age silently shrinks exactly where losses land.
- Aggregate with groupby(['origination_month','months_on_book'])['ever_90'].sum(), then pre-build the output frame indexed by sorted origination months with integer columns 0 to 12 and assign from the grouped Series by .loc on its index.
- Mask cells beyond each cohort's maximum observed months_on_book so an immature cell reads NaN instead of an artificially low rate.
Follow-up
- Two adjacent vintages diverge at months_on_book 6. How would you separate seasoning, mix shift and a genuine credit-quality change?
- The three most recent vintages look best on this table. What do you check before saying so?
- How does the table change if charge-off policy moved from 180 to 120 days past due partway through the series?
Collapse retry chains and compute a dollar-weighted approval rate
fct_payment_authorization gives auth_id, card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor, transaction_currency, requested_at, auth_result, is_reversal, channel and issuer_country. Two reference frames give the minor-unit exponent per currency and a daily rate to one reporting currency. Collapse retry chains first: attempts sharing card_token_id, merchant_id and amount_minor whose consecutive gaps are under 15 minutes form a single attempt, whose outcome is its last row. Exclude reversals and zero-amount verifications. Return a 7-day rolling dollar-weighted approval rate by channel and issuer_country.
Approach
- Filter before grouping: drop is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, since neither is a purchase attempt and both would otherwise sit in the denominator.
- Sort by card_token_id, merchant_id, amount_minor and requested_at, take the gap to the previous row within that key, mark a chain start where the gap exceeds 15 minutes or the key changes, and label chains with a cumulative sum of that flag. This is a gap rule between consecutive attempts, not a fixed clock bucket, so a chain may span more than 15 minutes in total.
- Keep each chain's terminal row by requested_at. If a retry was approved, the purchase was approved; keeping the first row reports the decline that caused the retry as the outcome.
- Convert amounts exactly once: amount_minor divided by 10 to the power of the currency exponent, multiplied by the reference rate for the authorization date. Do not reach for settlement_fx_rate, which is null on precisely the declined rows the denominator needs.
- Build the rolling window as a ratio of two rolling sums, approved value over total value, per channel and issuer_country. A rolling mean of daily ratios weights a quiet Sunday the same as a busy Friday.
Follow-up
- The count-weighted rate is flat while the dollar-weighted rate falls 80 basis points. What do you look at first?
- How would you choose the 15-minute window rather than inheriting it?
- A merchant moves from two retries to five. Which of your two rates moves, and is that a real change in approval quality?
Estimate a delinquency roll-rate matrix and project twelve months
fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, as_of_month_end, months_on_book, delinquency_bucket, charge_off_flag, prepaid_in_full_flag and restructured_flag. Build a month-to-month transition matrix over the five delinquency buckets plus absorbing charged_off and prepaid states. Loans that stop appearing must be routed to an absorbing state rather than dropped. Project the current book forward 12 months by repeated matrix multiplication and report the projected share reaching charge-off. Handle restructured_flag explicitly, and name one place the Markov assumption fails on this data.
Approach
- Build consecutive month pairs per loan by shifting as_of_month_end within loan_id, then verify the shifted value is exactly one month later. A gap is not a transition, it is an exit you have not resolved yet.
- Resolve exits before counting anything. A loan whose last row carries charge_off_flag moves to charged_off, one carrying prepaid_in_full_flag moves to prepaid, and one that disappears with neither is a data question to raise rather than silently discard, because discarding it is survivorship that inflates every cure rate.
- Count pairs into a 7 by 7 matrix and row-normalise. Assert every row sums to one and the two absorbing rows are the identity; a row that does not sum to one means exits were dropped.
- Decide and state the restructure rule. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a dpd_60_89 to current move on a restructured loan is not a cure. Either give restructured loans their own state or carry the pre-restructure bucket, but do not let that move land in the cure cell.
- Project by taking the current bucket distribution as a row vector and multiplying by the matrix twelve times. Report the charged_off entry, and report it again from an all-current starting vector so the reader can see how much of the projection comes from loans that are already delinquent today.
- State the homogeneity failure plainly: transition rates depend strongly on months_on_book, so one pooled matrix applied to a book with a young mix understates early-life delinquency. If the mix is moving, estimate separate matrices by seasoning band.
Worked solution 45 min
- Sort by loan_id and as_of_month_end, shift to form (from_state, to_state) pairs, and flag pairs whose month gap is not exactly one.
- For each loan's final row, assign the absorbing destination from charge_off_flag or prepaid_in_full_flag, and list loans that vanish with neither as an exception count to report.
- Apply the restructure rule, then build the 7 by 7 count matrix with a cross-tabulation over ordered state categories and row-normalise it.
- Assert row sums equal one and absorbing rows are the identity, then take the current month's bucket distribution as a row vector.
- Multiply twelve times, report the charged_off component, and repeat from an all-current vector for comparison.
Follow-up
- How would you validate the projection against what actually happened, and over what window?
- The cure rate out of dpd_30_59 rose five points last quarter. What are the candidate explanations and how would you separate them?
- When would you prefer a vintage curve to a roll-rate projection, and why?
How would you merge two large datasets in Python when you have limited…
How would you merge two large datasets in Python when you have limited memory capacity?
Approach
- Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
- Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
- State the window function and its partition and ordering out loud before writing it.
Follow-up
- How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
Write a Python function to find the duplicate elements in an array of …
Write a Python function to find the duplicate elements in an array of integers.
Approach
- Say which table is the grain you start from, and join outward from it.
- 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
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
- How does the query change if the join becomes one-to-many?
Explain the difference between a list and a tuple in Python, and provi…
Explain the difference between a list and a tuple in Python, and provide a scenario where you would choose one over the other.
Approach
- 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.
- 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?
Explain how you would perform data aggregation and group-by operations…
Explain how you would perform data aggregation and group-by operations to calculate monthly transaction averages.
Approach
- 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.
- Compute rates by summing numerator and denominator separately, never by averaging rates.
Follow-up
- How would you verify this result without re-running the same query?
- What breaks if events arrive late or out of order?
Customers with no credit application, avoiding the NOT IN trap
Count current customers who have never submitted a credit application, broken out by segment. dim_customer is a slowly changing dimension type 2, so restrict to is_current = true, kyc_status = 'verified' and closed_at null. In fct_loan_application, customer_id is null for applicants who were not customers when they applied. Write the anti-join, return segment and customer_count, and state in one line what NOT IN (SELECT customer_id FROM fct_loan_application) returns against this table and why.
Approach
- Pin the dimension to one row per customer first: is_current = true already guarantees that, but say so out loud, because forgetting it multiplies every count by the number of attribute versions a customer has accumulated.
- Write the anti-join as NOT EXISTS with a correlated predicate on customer_id, which evaluates per row and is unaffected by nulls anywhere in the applications table.
- Name the failure explicitly: NOT IN against a nullable column compares each candidate to a set containing NULL, the comparison yields UNKNOWN rather than TRUE, and the whole predicate is therefore never satisfied, so the query returns zero rows.
- If NOT IN is required for some reason, add WHERE customer_id IS NOT NULL inside the subquery, which restores the intended semantics, and note that a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter is equally safe.
- Group by segment and sanity-check the total against the unfiltered current-customer count minus the count of distinct applying customers.
Worked solution 20 min
- SELECT segment, COUNT(*) FROM dim_customer c WHERE c.is_current AND c.kyc_status = 'verified' AND c.closed_at IS NULL.
- Add AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM fct_loan_application a WHERE a.customer_id = c.customer_id).
- Group by segment and order by the count descending.
- Run the NOT IN variant alongside it and record that it returns zero rows, then run it again with IS NOT NULL added to the subquery and confirm the counts match the NOT EXISTS version.
Follow-up
- Rewrite it as a LEFT JOIN with IS NULL and say when you would prefer that form to NOT EXISTS.
- How does the answer change if you want customers who never applied as of a historical date rather than today?
- The applications table has 40,000 rows with a null customer_id. What are those rows, and are they a data quality problem or a product fact?
Test a referral rule when reviewers are a shared queue
A proposed risk rule raises the share of ecommerce authorizations routed to manual review. Reviewers work a shared pool of queues serving both arms, so extra referrals from treatment lengthen the wait for control cases too. The current plan randomises by customer_id and reads decision latency plus matured fraud basis points. Explain why that design is biased and in which direction, propose a design that is not, and say what governs its power.
Approach
- Name the violated assumption precisely: a unit's outcome depends on other units' assignments through the shared reviewer capacity, so the stable unit treatment value assumption fails. Customer-level randomisation then estimates a contrast between a degraded treatment and a degraded control, not between treatment and the status quo.
- State the direction. Treatment pushes work into the shared queue, control absorbs part of that wait, so the measured latency difference understates the true effect of full rollout. The test can look acceptable while the rolled-out state is materially worse, which is the expensive failure mode here.
- Move randomisation up to a unit that contains the interference. Either cluster-randomise whole queues or sites, or run a switchback that flips the rule for an entire queue over time blocks. Switchback is usually the better choice here because queue count is small and each queue serves as its own control, removing between-queue heterogeneity.
- Specify the switchback concretely. Block length should be several times the queue sojourn time; discard a burn-in after each switch equal to the 95th percentile sojourn so carryover cases from the previous regime do not contaminate the new block; balance assignment within each day so the daily arrival pattern cannot correlate with arm.
- Analyse at the randomisation unit. Aggregate to queue-block means, include queue and time-block fixed effects, and use randomisation inference or a wild cluster bootstrap rather than cluster-robust standard errors, which are anti-conservative with few clusters. Check residual autocorrelation between adjacent blocks; if it is material, widen the blocks or model it.
- Separate the two readouts by maturity. Latency and referral precision at case close are available inside the test window; matured fraud basis points require at least 120 days of dispute maturity from the transaction month, so it is a deferred confirmatory read and must not be presented as a low number on immature cohorts.
Follow-up
- How do you set the block length when the queue sojourn time itself changes under treatment?
- You have 14 queues and 30 days. Compare a queue-level cluster design against a queue-day switchback on power and on what each can estimate.
- The shared resource is capacity. What happens to your estimate if reviewers work faster when the queue is long?
Success metrics for loosening a fraud decline threshold
A risk team proposes lowering the risk_score cutoff that produces auth_result = 'declined_risk_rule'. Settled volume per active customer is the north star; net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume is the guardrail. The two move in opposite directions by construction. Specify the readout: primary metric, guardrail, the maturity window each is read at, and the decision rule agreed before launch. Show the expected-cost arithmetic that sets the cutoff using an average ticket of 200 units, a 1.5 percent contribution margin, 35 percent recovery on fraud losses, and 12 units of downstream value lost per false decline.
Approach
- Refuse the two-metric framing and convert both sides into one currency. Approving a fraudulent transaction costs the amount net of recovery; declining a good one costs the forgone margin plus the downstream value of the customer's reaction. Decline when p times C_FN exceeds (1 minus p) times C_FP, so the break-even probability is p* = C_FP / (C_FP + C_FN).
- Put the numbers in. C_FN = 200 times (1 minus 0.35) = 130, C_FP = 200 times 0.015 plus 12 = 15, so p* = 15 / 145 = 10.3 percent. Then show the threshold is amount-dependent: at a 2,000 ticket C_FN = 1,300 and C_FP = 42, giving p* = 3.1 percent, so a single global cutoff is already the wrong shape before any tuning starts.
- State the precondition that makes this arithmetic legal: risk_score has to be calibrated, so that a score of 0.10 corresponds to an observed 10 percent fraud rate. A score that only ranks makes p* meaningless. Check the reliability curve before quoting any cutoff to anyone.
- Set the maturity windows separately. Volume is readable within days, fraud loss is not, so the guardrail is read only on transaction months with at least 120 days of dispute maturity and the decision stays open until then, or a leading indicator is agreed in advance with its bias written down.
- Agree the stopping rule before launch in the right units: revert if matured net fraud loss per unit of incremental settled volume exceeds the figure implied by p*. Fraud loss is supposed to rise when the cutoff loosens, so a rule that triggers on any rise is a rule that was never going to allow the change.
- Report the swap set rather than portfolio totals: the transactions the new cutoff approves that the old one declined, and their realised loss rate. Portfolio aggregates dilute the change into invisibility.
Worked solution 30 min
- Compute p* at ticket sizes of 50, 200 and 2,000 with the given margin, recovery and false-decline cost, and tabulate them.
- Bucket historical declined_risk_rule authorizations by risk_score decile and, for each bucket, write down what outcome data exists and what does not.
- Write the readout spec: primary metric, guardrail, the 120-day maturity rule, the swap-set table and the numeric stopping rule.
- Write the calibration precondition in two sentences and say how you would test it.
Follow-up
- Fraud loss in basis points falls after launch. Name two ways that happens without any improvement in decisioning.
- How do you keep observing outcomes in the region the rule still declines?
- What changes if the 12 units of downstream value is a guess with no evidence behind it?
Approval rate rose in every band yet fell overall
Monthly application approval rate on fct_loan_application fell from 62 to 57 percent. Cut by bureau_score band, the rate rose in every band, including the null-bureau band. Columns: application_id, channel, submitted_at, requested_amount_minor, declared_annual_income_minor, bureau_score, model_pd_12m, model_version, policy_rule_hits, decision, decided_by, decision_at. The denominator is decision in ('approve','decline'). Explain the arithmetic, quantify how much of the five-point fall is mix versus within-band movement, and say what you would tell the team that owns acquisition.
Approach
- Confirm the paradox is real rather than a banding artefact. Rebuild the bands on fixed cutpoints taken from the earlier period, because quantile bands re-cut each month move with the population and can manufacture this pattern on their own.
- Compute the exact decomposition rather than describing it: within = sum of w_i0 * (r_i1 - r_i0), mix = sum of r_i0 * (w_i1 - w_i0), interaction = sum of (w_i1 - w_i0) * (r_i1 - r_i0). The three terms sum identically to the change in the blended rate, so the report can state the split.
- Attribute the weight change by cutting the same fixed bands by channel. Keep null bureau_score as its own band; a thin file is a population signal, not missing data to be imputed away.
- Check whether the new arrivals also changed the population inside a band, by comparing requested_amount_minor and declared_annual_income_minor distributions within one band across the two months.
- Deliver two numbers rather than one story: policy is looser in every band, and the funnel is being fed a different population. Those have different owners and different fixes.
Follow-up
- If the new channel is profitable at its own approval rate, is the blended fall a problem at all?
- How would you present this so that nobody reads the blended series unaccompanied again?
- What breaks if you fix the mix by reweighting to a frozen band distribution every month?
For someone who has spent the last year in notebooks, dashboards or modelling work and has not written raw SQL under time pressure. The first four days rebuild query fluency against a fixture you control and can verify by hand; the last three attach that fluency to the rest of the loop.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Build a fixture you can check answers against
- Create a local Postgres or SQLite database with four tables (users, sessions, events, orders) holding roughly 200 rows you generated yourself, so you know the contents well enough to predict every result.
- Deliberately seed the cases that break queries: a user with no sessions, a session with no events, two orders sharing a timestamp, a NULL in one join key, and one duplicated user row.
- Before writing any SQL, hand-compute five answers on paper (how many users placed at least one order, median orders per ordering user, and three others) and save them as the ground truth for the week.
Deliverable: A one-command seed script plus a text file of five hand-computed answers to grade every later query against.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Joins, filters and NULL semantics
- Answer "which users have no orders" three ways (LEFT JOIN with IS NULL, NOT EXISTS, NOT IN) and confirm that the NOT IN version returns zero rows once the subquery contains a NULL, because the comparison is never TRUE.
- Reproduce the LEFT JOIN that silently collapses to an inner join by putting a right-table predicate in WHERE, then fix it by moving the predicate into the ON clause, and record both row counts.
- Create a fan-out bug on purpose by joining orders to order_items and summing the order total, then correct it with a pre-aggregated subquery and explain in one line which table changed the grain.
Deliverable: One annotated .sql file holding the three join traps, each with the wrong result and the corrected result side by side.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Window functions and frames
- Write three window queries against the fixture: a running order total per user, the rank of each order within its user by value, and the day gap to that user's previous order, then check each against the day-one ground truth.
- Run ROW_NUMBER, RANK and DENSE_RANK over a column containing ties, print all three side by side, and write one sentence on when each is the correct choice.
- Switch one query from the default frame (RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, which is what you get when ORDER BY is present and no frame is written) to ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and explain why the output differs only when the ORDER BY column has duplicates.
Deliverable: Three verified window queries plus a short note explaining the RANGE versus ROWS difference in your own words.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04The four analytical query patterns
- Write a monthly retention grid: first order month per user, then months-since-first as the column, and verify that month zero equals the cohort size exactly.
- Sessionize the events table under a 30-minute inactivity rule using LAG plus a cumulative sum over a new-session flag.
- Build a four-step funnel that counts distinct users rather than events at each step, and state the rule you applied to a user who reaches step three without ever logging step two.
Deliverable: One file with the retention, sessionization and funnel patterns, each carrying a one-line note on the assumption it bakes in.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Write SQL the way you will have to write it live
- Set a 12-minute timer and solve three medium prompts in a plain editor with no execution and no autocomplete, then run them and tally syntax errors separately from logic errors.
- Narrate one solution aloud while writing it, stating the grain of each intermediate result (one row per user, one row per user-day) before you type its body.
- Rewrite your slowest solution as a CTE chain where every CTE name states its grain, and time yourself re-solving it from blank.
Deliverable: A recording of one narrated solution plus an error tally that separates syntax from logic.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06One day for everything that is not SQL
- Write the preconditions of the two-sample t-test from memory, then check them: independent observations, and a difference in means whose sampling distribution is approximately normal, which at large sample sizes follows from the central limit theorem rather than from normality of the raw values.
- Write the difference between an odds ratio from logistic regression and a relative risk, and state the condition under which the two are close (low outcome prevalence).
- Prepare a 90-second answer to "how would you know this model is any good" that names the metric, the baseline you would beat, and the cost of the errors you care about.
Deliverable: One page of notes covering test preconditions, the odds-ratio caveat and the model-quality answer.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Full loop rehearsal
- Run a 45-minute mock with someone willing to interrupt: 20 minutes of SQL, 15 minutes defining a metric, 10 minutes on a past project.
- Re-solve from blank the two queries you were slowest on this week and compare the times against day five.
- Write a five-line answer to "walk me through a project" that puts a number in the first sentence and names the decision the work changed.
Deliverable: Mock feedback notes plus a timed project narrative you can deliver without reading it.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
Interviewers here are not checking whether you can describe a project. They want the decision you made, why you made it under the information you had, and what changed afterwards that someone else could measure. A story that ends at 'I built a model' has no ending. Say what the model caused, or what you stopped doing because of it.
How do you handle missing values in a large dataset using Pandas, and …
How do you handle missing values in a large dataset using Pandas, and what are the trade-offs of imputation versus deletion?
Approach
- Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Follow-up
- What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
Turn a one-line fraud-number request into a scoped brief
A stakeholder messages: what is our fraud rate, and is it going up? You have fct_payment_authorization, fct_card_dispute and dim_customer. At least four defensible answers exist: count-weighted or value-weighted, attributed to the transaction month or to the dispute filing month, and gross or net of recoveries and successful representments. You get one reply before someone else produces an uncaveated number. Write that reply: the clarifying questions you ask, the single default you will produce if nobody answers, and what the default excludes.
Approach
- Establish the decision behind the question first, because a risk-rule change, a board number and a merchant contract negotiation need different denominators, and asking which one is not stalling.
- Offer a short menu rather than an open question: a stakeholder can choose between two named options but cannot specify a denominator from scratch.
- Commit to a default so the reply is useful even if nobody answers, for example net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, attributed to the requested_at month, matured months only.
- State the exclusions in the same breath as the default: non-fraud dispute categories, transaction months with less than 120 days of maturity, and first-party abuse that arrives coded as consumer_dispute.
- Give a delivery time for the default and a longer one for the fuller cut, so the choice between them carries a visible cost.
Follow-up
- They come back wanting it by merchant for a contract negotiation. What changes in the definition and in the maturity rule?
- How would you separate first-party abuse from third-party fraud in this data, and what would you refuse to conclude from the split?
Disagree with a product manager over an approval-rate target
A product manager proposes a quarterly goal of raising card authorization approval rate by 150 basis points, measured as approved authorizations divided by all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. You believe that metric can be hit with no customer benefit, because merchant retry chains, zero-amount verification authorizations, incremental authorizations and reversals all sit in the denominator, and declines skew toward high-value cross-border ecommerce. You support the underlying goal. In one working session, change the metric without killing the initiative, and name the guardrail you would accept.
Approach
- Separate the goal from the metric out loud and agree with the goal first, so the disagreement stays narrow and technical rather than becoming positional.
- Demonstrate the failure rather than asserting it: compute the proposed metric and the dollar-weighted collapsed version over the same recent window, and find a period where they moved in opposite directions.
- Propose the replacement precisely: sum of approved amount_minor over sum of attempted amount_minor, after collapsing retries to one attempt per card_token_id, merchant_id and amount_minor within a 15-minute window, excluding is_reversal rows and zero-amount verifications, with everything converted to one reporting currency before summing.
- Attach the guardrail that makes the target honest: matured first-chargeback rate and net fraud loss in basis points of settled volume, read only on transaction months carrying at least 120 days of maturity.
- Give the product manager something back: the replacement metric cuts cleanly by channel and issuer_country, which makes a roadmap of merchant-specific and authentication fixes legible in a way the blended rate never was.
Follow-up
- How do you identify a retry chain when the merchant varies the amount slightly between attempts?
- The product manager wants a weekly read on the guardrail. What is the earliest defensible signal, and how do you label it?
- 01
How do you handle missing values in a large dataset using Pandas, and what are the trade-offs of imputation versus deletion?
- 02
A stakeholder messages: what is our fraud rate, and is it going up? You have fct_payment_authorization, fct_card_dispute and dim_customer. At least four defensible answers exist: count-weighted or value-weighted, attributed to the transaction month or to the dispute filing month, and gross or net of recoveries and successful representments. You get one reply before someone else produces an uncaveated number. Write that reply: the clarifying questions you ask, the single default you will produce if nobody answers, and what the default excludes.
- 03
A product manager proposes a quarterly goal of raising card authorization approval rate by 150 basis points, measured as approved authorizations divided by all authorizations in fct_payment_authorization. You believe that metric can be hit with no customer benefit, because merchant retry chains, zero-amount verification authorizations, incremental authorizations and reversals all sit in the denominator, and declines skew toward high-value cross-border ecommerce. You support the underlying goal. In one working session, change the metric without killing the initiative, and name the guardrail you would accept.
Is this an official Synchrony interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Synchrony. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Synchrony has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the typical interview difficulty for the Data Scientist role?
Candidates generally report the interview difficulty as average. The technical coding questions are practical and focused on data manipulation rather than complex algorithmic puzzles, while the case studies and behavioral rounds require strong structured thinking and communication.
PracHub interview research ↗How long does the entire interview process take?
The timeline can vary. Some candidates report a quick process of a few weeks, while others experience a longer timeline of up to two months from the initial HR screen to the final decision. However, once the final panel interview takes place, feedback and decisions are typically delivered within a week.
PracHub interview research ↗Is there a live coding component in the interview?
Yes. You should expect a technical round that includes live coding, typically focusing on Python data structures, data wrangling, and basic data cleaning tasks. The level of coding is practical and directly relates to the types of data preparation tasks you would perform on the job.
PracHub interview research ↗What are they looking for in the behavioral rounds?
Interviewers want to see how you handle real-world challenges, collaborate with cross-functional teams, and communicate technical concepts. They value candidates who can demonstrate a strong sense of ownership, adaptability, and the ability to drive business value through data.
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.