A Data Scientist at Viasat plays a critical role in shaping the future of global connectivity. Operating at the intersection of satellite communications, defense technology, and consumer internet, Viasat relies on data science to optimize massive network infrastructures, predict hardware failures, and enhance user experience across commercial and government sectors. Unlike traditional tech environments where data science is purely focused on digital consumer products, Viasat data scientists tackle complex physical and digital challenges, such as modeling network telemetry, analyzing user equipment performance, and securing communications for critical operations.
By translating complex network and telemetry data into actionable insights, you will directly influence the performance of satellite fleets and ground systems that keep millions of people connected. The role requires a unique blend of deep machine learning expertise, robust data engineering capabilities, and strong business acumen. Data scientists here do not work in silos; they collaborate with network engineers, cyber experts, and product managers to solve real-world problems that have a global footprint.
Whether you are optimizing data pipelines for the Viasat Government division or building predictive maintenance models for commercial satellites, your work will directly drive operational efficiency and product innovation. This position offers a rare opportunity to apply cutting-edge data science methodologies to a massive, complex physical infrastructure, making it both an intellectually stimulating and highly impactful career path.
Initial Screening
reportedData Scientist covers at least four different jobs: experimentation, product analytics, causal work on observational data, and applied modelling that ships into a system. A screening call is the cheapest place to find out which of them is being hired for, and doing that diagnosis openly reads as senior rather than fussy. Ask what the last few pieces of work on the team actually were, and roughly how a week splits between querying, modelling and stakeholder time. Then say which parts of that you have done and which you have not. Claiming the whole range is the fastest way to be caught one round later.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you can distinguish the flavours of the role and locate your own experience inside one of them honestly
- Whether you name what you have not done instead of stretching to cover every line of the posting
- Whether your hard constraints (notice period, location, work authorisation, level) surface now rather than at offer stage
How to prepare
- Map the last two years of your time into rough percentages across query writing, experiment design, modelling and stakeholder work, so a question about scope has a real answer
- Mark every responsibility in the posting as done, adjacent or new, and prepare one sentence for each adjacent item naming the closest thing you have actually built
- Decide which logistics are non-negotiable before the call so you can state them in one sentence rather than negotiating live
Technical Screening
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 Round
reportedWhere a loop ends with a senior leader, that conversation is rarely another skills test. The technical signal already exists by then, so the questions tend to open up: what you would look at first, where a metric you have heard about could mislead, what you would push back on. The decision being made is scope, which in practice means level and how much you would be trusted to own unsupervised. Treating it as a formality is the usual mistake. An open question late in the day is still being scored, and a vague answer reads as someone who has not run anything themselves.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your view of the business has anything specific behind it, given that you are working only from what is public and are expected to say so
- Whether the scope of work you describe owning matches the scope of the role, instead of sitting a level below it
- Whether you can disagree with something concrete and stay useful about it, rather than agreeing with everything said in the room
- Whether your questions are ones only this person could answer, as opposed to ones the recruiter already covered
How to prepare
- Build one view you could defend for two minutes using only public information: what the funnel probably looks like, which metric likely drives decisions, and where that metric could mislead. Being wrong for a stated reason survives this round; having no view does not
- Write down the largest piece of work you have owned from question to decision, who else touched it, and what you decided alone, then check that it reads at the level you are interviewing for
- Prepare one thing you would want changed if you joined and phrase it as a question rather than a verdict, so it opens a conversation instead of closing one
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Randomising an experiment at the user level when users share an account
Two problems fire at once. Colleagues in one workspace see each other's work and talk to each other, so a treated user changes the behaviour of a control user in the same account, which violates the no-interference assumption and biases the estimate toward zero. Separately, outcomes within an account are strongly correlated, so the effective sample size is roughly n / (1 + (m - 1) * rho) for m users per account and intra-class correlation rho, not n. With rho around 0.3 and twenty users per account that is a design effect near 6.7, meaning a user-level confidence interval is about two and a half times narrower than it should be and results cross significance thresholds on noise alone. Randomise the account and cluster the standard errors.
Reporting a mean over accounts when account revenue is heavy-tailed
When a small number of accounts hold most of the revenue, the sample mean is dominated by whichever of them happens to be in the sample, and the sample variance keeps growing as more data arrives instead of stabilising. In that regime the usual central-limit-based confidence interval understates uncertainty, and a single renewal or a single large account's batch job can flip the sign of a measured effect. The fixes are to pre-register a winsorisation or capping rule before looking at the outcome, to report account counts crossing a threshold alongside the revenue figure, or to define the estimand on a bounded transform. Choosing the cap after seeing the result is a separate and worse problem, because the cap then encodes the answer.
Sizing estimates built on unnamed, unrevisable assumptions
Write each assumption as a named number you can change, then show the arithmetic so the interviewer can challenge one input instead of the whole answer. Finish by saying which assumption the result is most sensitive to, which matters more than the point estimate.
Never asking what decision the analysis will inform
Open with who makes the decision, what the options are, and by when. The answer determines the precision you need, the segments worth cutting, and whether an observational read suffices or an experiment is required.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
When dealing with highly imbalanced datasets, how do you decide betwee…
When dealing with highly imbalanced datasets, how do you decide between up-sampling and down-sampling?
Approach
- Quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than reporting a point estimate alone.
- Translate the result into the decision it informs, in one plain sentence.
- Write down the assumption the method needs before you use the method.
Follow-up
- How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
- Which assumption here is most likely to be violated in practice?
How do you evaluate the performance of a classification model when the…
How do you evaluate the performance of a classification model when the class distribution is highly skewed?
Approach
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
Follow-up
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
Explain the difference between overfitting and underfitting, and how w…
Explain the difference between overfitting and underfitting, and how would you address each in a model?
Approach
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
- Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Follow-up
- What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
Walk me through your standard process for data cleaning and feature en…
Walk me through your standard process for data cleaning and feature engineering.
Approach
- Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
Follow-up
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
Simulate how the renewal calendar distorts monthly churn rates
Simulate 1,200 accounts on annual contracts. Draw each account's renewal month from a deliberately lumpy calendar: 30% renew in January and the remaining 70% are spread evenly over the other eleven months. At each renewal an account churns with probability 0.18, independent of month; survivors renew and come back twelve months later. Run 24 simulated months. For each month compute two rates: churned accounts over all live accounts, and churned accounts over accounts whose term ended that month. Report the mean and the month-to-month standard deviation of each series, and state which one belongs in an executive summary.
Approach
- Build the panel with numpy state arrays rather than a per-account loop: a next_renewal_month vector, an alive boolean vector, and a loop over the 24 months only. Looping over 24 months is fine; looping over 1,200 accounts inside it is what makes the simulation too slow to iterate on.
- Maintain the live set honestly. An account that churned in month m must leave the denominator from m+1 onward and can never be renewal-eligible again; if it stays, the naive rate drifts downward for reasons that have nothing to do with churn and the calendar effect gets buried.
- Compute both series over the same months and compare dispersion, not only level. The eligible-base rate should sit near 0.18 with binomial noise scaled by that month's renewal count; the naive rate spikes in January and collapses in thin months.
- Quantify the gap instead of describing it: the ratio of the two means is roughly the reciprocal of the average monthly renewal-eligible fraction, and the naive series' standard deviation is driven by the signing calendar rather than by customer behaviour.
- Check against the closed form before trusting the output. With the live set maintained correctly the eligible-base rate is an unbiased estimator of 0.18 in every month, so a systematic offset means the bookkeeping is wrong, not that the simulation found something.
Worked solution 30 min
- rng = np.random.default_rng(0); p = [0.30] + [0.70/11]*11; next_renewal = rng.choice(12, size=1200, p=p); alive = np.ones(1200, bool)
- For m in range(24): eligible = alive & (next_renewal == m); churn = eligible & (rng.random(1200) < 0.18); record churn.sum(), eligible.sum(), alive.sum() at month start; alive &= ~churn; next_renewal[eligible & ~churn] += 12
- naive = churned / live_at_start; eligible_rate = churned / eligible, left as NaN where eligible == 0.
- Report naive.mean(), naive.std(ddof=1), np.nanmean(eligible_rate), np.nanstd(eligible_rate, ddof=1) and the ratio of the two means.
Follow-up
- Compounded over twelve months the naive rate lands close to the true annual churn. Does that rescue it?
- How would you report churn in a month where only nine accounts were renewal-eligible?
- Eighteen-month terms are now being sold alongside annual ones. What breaks?
Collapse retried requests into logical operations per account
fct_api_request carries request_id, account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key (null when the caller supplied none), is_retry, request_at and http_status. For one ISO week, count logical operations rather than HTTP calls: requests sharing (account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key) collapse to the earliest one, while every request with a null idempotency_key is its own operation. Return per account the raw request count, the logical operation count and the ratio between them, and state which direction a rising 5xx rate pushes that ratio.
Approach
- Split the stream before deduplicating. GROUP BY and PARTITION BY treat NULLs as equal to one another, while the = operator does not, so a single grouping pass folds every null-key request in an account into one 'operation' and can cut the count by orders of magnitude.
- Deduplicate the keyed rows with ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY account_id, api_key_id, idempotency_key ORDER BY request_at, request_id) and keep rn = 1. Including request_id in the ORDER BY makes the result deterministic when two rows share a millisecond, which they will.
- UNION ALL the null-key rows back in unchanged; they need no dedup and must not pass through the partition.
- Aggregate per account: count() over the raw week, count() over the union, and the ratio of the two. Report the ratio, not the difference, so accounts of very different sizes are comparable.
- Cross-check against is_retry, which flags a resend of the same idempotency key: raw minus logical should sit close to the count of is_retry rows, and a large gap means clients are resending without a key and the dedup is under-counting duplicates.
- Name the inversion explicitly: 5xx responses provoke client retries, so amplification rises exactly when reliability falls, and any engagement metric built on raw request counts will show growth during an outage.
Follow-up
- Which of these two counts belongs in the billable-units metric, and which in an engagement metric?
- An account's amplification ratio jumps from 1.05 to 3.0 in a day. Name three causes and the query that separates them.
Find paid seats that never called the API
dim_user_membership carries user_id, account_id, seat_type, is_service_account, deactivated_at and last_seen_at. fct_api_request carries user_id, which is null whenever the caller is a service account or an unattended key, plus account_id, request_at and http_status. For a single account, list every licensed_paid seat with is_service_account = false and deactivated_at null that issued no request at all in the trailing 90 days, returning user_id and last_seen_at. A first draft writes NOT IN against a subquery over fct_api_request.user_id. State exactly what that draft returns and why, then write the correct query.
Approach
- Read the column comment first: user_id is nullable on the fact, so the subquery almost certainly contains at least one NULL for any account that runs a service account or an unattended key.
- Work the three-valued logic out loud. x NOT IN (a, NULL) expands to NOT (x = a OR x = NULL); the second disjunct is UNKNOWN, so for any x not equal to a the whole predicate is UNKNOWN and the row is filtered out. The draft returns zero rows, which reads as full seat utilisation.
- Rewrite as NOT EXISTS with the 90-day and status predicates inside the correlated subquery. Putting them in the outer WHERE instead turns the anti-join into a different question and silently changes the answer.
- Correlate on both user_id and account_id. A membership is (user_id, account_id) and one person can hold memberships in several accounts, so correlating on user_id alone marks a seat as active because that human was busy somewhere else.
- Filter the seat side to seat_type = 'licensed_paid', is_service_account = false and deactivated_at IS NULL, and say what the resulting count means next to contracted_seats on the current subscription row.
Worked solution 15 min
- Confirm the hazard with one query: SELECT count(*) FROM fct_api_request WHERE user_id IS NULL AND account_id = :account_id. Any non-zero result proves the draft returns nothing.
- Write the seat side: SELECT user_id, last_seen_at FROM dim_user_membership WHERE account_id = :account_id AND seat_type = 'licensed_paid' AND NOT is_service_account AND deactivated_at IS NULL.
- Attach AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM fct_api_request r WHERE r.user_id = m.user_id AND r.account_id = m.account_id AND r.request_at >= now() - interval '90 days').
- Compare the row count against the same query written as a LEFT JOIN with a WHERE r.user_id IS NULL; the two must agree exactly.
- Divide the active seat count by contracted_seats from the account's current fct_subscription_period row and state the utilisation figure.
Follow-up
- Adding AND user_id IS NOT NULL to the subquery also fixes NOT IN. Why is NOT EXISTS still the form you would leave in the repository?
- last_seen_at looks like a shortcut for the whole query. What does it actually record, and where does it disagree with API activity?
- This is a seat-reduction risk list. What threshold would you attach before handing it to an account team, and what happens to seats below it?
Triage a sample ratio mismatch before reading the result
An account-randomised test assigned arms 50/50 by hashing account_id. Exposure logging recorded 4,200 accounts: 1,987 in treatment and 2,213 in control. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test against the intended 2,100/2,100 split gives chi-square(1) = 12.2, p about 0.0005. The analyst reports the primary metric up 6% in treatment and asks to ship. Explain what the imbalance implies about that 6%, rank the causes you would investigate first given this domain's data, and name for each the single query against fct_api_request or dim_account that confirms or eliminates it.
Approach
- State the rule before diagnosing anything: a sample ratio mismatch below a 0.001 alarm threshold invalidates the readout. Whatever mechanism removed 113 accounts from one arm almost certainly removed them non-randomly, which makes it a selection effect on the outcome. The 6% is not to be adjusted, caveated or shipped; it is unusable until the mechanism is named.
- Verify the test is testing the right thing. chi-square = (1987 - 2100)^2 / 2100 + (2213 - 2100)^2 / 2100 = 6.08 + 6.08 = 12.16 on one degree of freedom. Confirm the denominator is the intended assignment count rather than the observed total, and that you are testing assignment rather than an analysis population that has already been filtered.
- Rank causes by how this domain actually breaks rather than by textbook order: is_internal accounts filtered after assignment instead of before; exposure logged on a code path that returns 5xx more often in one arm, silently dropping those accounts; assignment recorded at first request but exposure at a later event, so accounts that churned in between appear in only one arm; dim_account type-2 versioning giving one account_id two surrogate keys and two hash inputs; deployment_model = 'self_hosted' accounts that never emit exposure telemetry at all.
- Attach one discriminating query to each: count arms before the is_internal filter; compare the http_status >= 500 rate by arm on the exposure endpoint in fct_api_request; compare the distribution of created_at and churned_at by arm in dim_account; count distinct account_sk per account_id inside the experiment window; cross-tabulate arm against deployment_model.
- Compare counts at three fixed stages, assignment, first exposure, and analysis population, and localise the divergence to one of them. The stage where the arms first separate names the subsystem, and everything downstream of it is a symptom.
- Report the outcome as abort, fix, rerun, and be explicit about what survives: the variance estimate for re-powering, the instrumentation fix, and nothing whatsoever about the effect size.
Worked solution 20 min
- Recompute the statistic: two terms of 113^2 / 2100 = 6.08, total 12.16, p about 0.0005 on one degree of freedom, below the 0.001 alarm line.
- Pull arm counts at assignment, at first exposure, and in the analysis population, and find the first stage at which they diverge.
- At that stage, cross-tabulate arm against is_internal, deployment_model, and the 5xx rate on the exposure endpoint.
- Write the abort note naming the mechanism, the corrected code path, and the rerun date, with the effect estimate explicitly withheld.
Follow-up
- The imbalance disappears once you restrict to accounts with at least one successful request. Does that fix the experiment or confirm the bug?
- What alarm threshold would you set for this check, and why is 0.05 the wrong one for a diagnostic you run on every experiment every day?
- How would you detect a mismatch confined to one segment while the overall split looks clean?
Design the retention metric suite for a quarterly board pack
You own the retention numbers in the quarterly board pack. Build them from fct_subscription_period (account_id, arr_cents, term_start_date, term_end_date, amendment_type, booked_at, is_current, superseded_by_id) rather than from invoices. Deliver net revenue retention over a trailing twelve months, the guardrails that stop it being satisfied by shrinking the business, and the reporting lag you will enforce. Specify the cohort rule, state whether you report a ratio of sums or a mean of per-account ratios and why, and name two ways the headline number rises while the business gets worse.
Approach
- Freeze the cohort at month M-12: the set of accounts with ARR above zero on that date. No account acquired after M-12 enters either side of the ratio. That constraint is the entire point, because it makes the number a statement about the installed base rather than about how well sales did last quarter.
- Read arr_cents from the fct_subscription_period version that was live on each of the two dates, selected by term_start_date and term_end_date bracketing the date, never by is_current, which silently rates last year's revenue at this year's plan. Invoiced amounts move with billing_frequency and prepayment and will not reconcile to a contract-derived figure, so pick one source and say which.
- Report the ratio of sums: total arr_cents at M over the frozen cohort divided by total at M-12. The mean of per-account ratios is a different estimand and much noisier on a few thousand accounts, because contraction is bounded below at zero while expansion is unbounded, so a handful of large expansions dominate the mean.
- Attach the two guardrails that close the two gaming routes. Gross logo retention on the renewal-eligible base catches raising the ratio by declining to serve the churn-prone segment, because it is computed only over accounts that actually had an opportunity to leave. New-logo ARR reported beside it exposes a contracting top of funnel that the ratio is structurally incapable of seeing.
- Enforce the lag and the restatement policy. A 45-day grace on term_end_date for late paperwork means the most recent 45 days are never reportable, and a month is openly restated when the grace closes rather than quietly corrected between board packs.
Follow-up
- Compute net revenue retention both ways on the same cohort. What does a large gap between the ratio of sums and the mean of per-account ratios tell you about the shape of the expansion distribution?
- A ramp deal is signed in March and starts in July. Which month does it belong to on the board's sales-effectiveness page, and which on this one?
Net revenue retention jumps sixteen points in one month
Trailing-twelve-month net revenue retention printed around 108 percent for months and now reads 124 percent, with no unusual deals closed. The query sums arr_cents from fct_subscription_period (account_id, arr_cents, term_start_date, term_end_date, amendment_type, superseded_by_id, is_current, booked_at) filtered on is_current = true at month M, across accounts holding arr_cents > 0 at month M-12. Find the defect, correct the number, and rewrite the definition so the next person cannot reintroduce it.
Approach
- Audit the grain before the arithmetic: count account_ids holding more than one row with is_current = true and superseded_by_id null. A versioned contract table that double counts one amendment batch inflates the numerator while leaving the denominator untouched.
- Replace is_current with an as-of selection on both dates, taking the version whose term_start_date and term_end_date bracket the reporting date and tie-breaking on latest booked_at. The numerator is read as of M and the denominator as of M-12; neither uses today's live version.
- Verify the cohort is frozen. The account set is fixed at M-12 and nothing acquired since may enter the numerator, so check that no join to a current-period table quietly re-admits new accounts.
- Confirm the estimand is a ratio of sums rather than a mean of per-account ratios. Contraction is floored at zero while expansion is unbounded, so the two constructions differ systematically and the second is far noisier.
- Reissue the definition with the failure modes written into it: exactly one row per account per date by construction, cohort frozen at M-12, churned accounts contributing zero rather than dropping out of the numerator.
Follow-up
- A churned account should contribute zero rather than disappear. What does the ratio do under each treatment, and which one is correct?
- How would you unit-test this metric so a future amendment batch with the same defect fails a check instead of reaching a board slide?
Four days spend equal time on query work, statistics, modelling and product judgement at deliberately shallow depth, which produces a scored map of where you actually stand. The last three days spend everything on the two areas the role weights most, and close by re-running day one to measure movement.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Breadth pass: query fluency
- Solve six prompts spanning aggregation, joins, window functions and date arithmetic in 60 minutes total, stopping at 10 minutes each whether or not it works, and mark every prompt as solved, solved slowly, or stuck.
- For each unsolved prompt write the single blocking sentence (I lost the grain, I did not know the frame clause, I could not express the date boundary) instead of reading the solution.
- Translate one pandas transformation you know well into SQL and one SQL query into pandas, checking that both return the same row count and the same totals.
Deliverable: A scored six-row table, one line per prompt, saved for the day-seven re-run.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02Breadth pass: statistics and inference
- Answer ten short questions in writing with nothing open: what a p-value is conditional on, what a 95 percent interval covers across repeated samples, when a paired test is the right one, what the bootstrap estimates, why multiple comparisons inflate false positives, how controlling the family-wise error rate differs from controlling the false discovery rate, what power depends on, what a missed real effect costs a product, the three situations where the central limit theorem does not rescue you (small n, very heavy tails, dependent observations), and what a standard error is the standard deviation of.
- Grade yourself against a reference and count only the answers that were exactly right, not the ones that were nearly right.
- Rewrite the two weakest answers the following morning from memory in full sentences.
Deliverable: Ten graded answers with an honest count of exact hits.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03Breadth pass: modelling
- Take one tabular dataset end to end in 90 minutes: a leakage-safe split, a baseline that is not a model (majority class or historical mean), one regularized linear model, one gradient-boosted tree, and a single evaluation metric chosen before you look at any result.
- Write why that metric fits the cost structure: precision at a fixed recall for alerting, calibration for anything feeding a price or a threshold, ranking metrics for retrieval, and note that area under the ROC curve is insensitive to class balance in a way that can flatter a rare-positive problem.
- Name the leak you were most likely to introduce (an encoding fit on all rows before splitting, or a feature computed after the label's timestamp) and write the check that would have caught it.
Deliverable: A notebook whose first cell states the metric and the baseline, plus two lines on what beat what and by how much.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04Breadth pass: product judgement
- Answer three case prompts aloud at 15 minutes each, timing how long passes before you state a success metric.
- For one case write the first segmentation you would run and the row counts you expect per segment, so that a tiny segment cannot quietly drive the conclusion.
- Take a metric definition you did not write, from a public dashboard, a textbook, or documentation you already have open, and list every place two analysts implementing it would diverge: which rows the denominator admits, whether the unit is an account or a person, what the time window is anchored to, and what happens to data that arrives late. Then write the one question that would close the largest of those gaps.
Deliverable: Three recorded case answers plus an ambiguity list for a metric someone else defined, ending in the single question you would ask about it.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Depth, first area
- Rank the four areas by how many bullet points in the role description each one covers, pick the top one, and spend the entire day inside it.
- Work the six hardest problems you can find in that area and for each write the generalizable move you should have reached for first, rather than the answer.
- Re-solve the two you failed the same evening with notes closed.
Deliverable: Six generalizable moves written as instructions to yourself, not as solutions.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Depth, second area, and the seam between them
- Repeat the depth protocol on the second-ranked area with the same six-problem structure.
- Construct one problem that requires both areas at once, for example a metric redefinition whose effect you must validate with a test whose readout you then have to query.
- Solve your own combined problem end to end and note where the handoff between the two areas cost you time.
Deliverable: One combined problem, solved end to end, with the handoff failure written down.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Integration and re-measurement
- Re-run the six prompts from day one under the same clock and compare both correctness and time.
- Run a 60-minute mixed mock that moves between areas without warning, since switching cost is what breadth passes do not train.
- Write the two areas you would still fail on, and the sentence you will use in the interview when you hit one of them.
Deliverable: A before-and-after score table plus a written plan for the two remaining gaps.
Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
An answer without a quantity is hard to interrogate, so interviewers keep probing until they find one. Come with the baseline, the change, the window it was measured over, and how confident you were. If the effect never got measured, say so and say what you would have measured. Fabricated precision is worse than an honest gap.
State the measured impact of your own work honestly
You are asked for the business impact of a renewal-risk worklist you shipped nine months ago. Customer success used it, and renewals in the covered segment came in 6 points above the prior year. Coverage was assigned by the team itself: they worked the top of your list and also the accounts they were already worried about. Produce the impact claim you are willing to defend, the number you refuse to claim, and the design you would have asked for at the start.
Approach
- The interviewer is probing whether you can separate what you shipped from what you caused, and whether you would have built the measurement in rather than reconstructing it afterwards. Both halves are being scored.
- Name the confound precisely. Coverage assignment is doubly selected: the largest accounts get an owner because they are valuable, and distressed accounts get one because they are at risk. The naive covered versus uncovered comparison mixes a strong positive selection with a strong negative one and can come out with either sign depending on which rule dominated. Matching on account size does not fix it, because the risk signal that triggered coverage is the same signal that predicts the outcome.
- Split the claims by what each needs to be true. Ranking quality is defensible from precision at k on out-of-time renewals. Adoption is defensible from timestamps showing what share of listed accounts were contacted. The outcome claim is not defensible without a design, and saying so is the point of the exercise.
- Look for identification before giving up on it. A capacity cut-off, a territory boundary, or a period in which the list existed but was unstaffed can assign coverage for reasons unrelated to account health, and any of those supports a bounded estimate.
- State the design you would ask for now and its price: a randomly withheld slice of the list, held for two renewal quarters, with the expected cost in renewals stated openly. That cost is what it takes to be able to answer this question at all.
- Give a bounded number rather than none. Six points with an explicit statement of how much of it you can attribute is more useful than either claiming the whole figure or declining to quantify anything.
Follow-up
- Your manager wants the 6 points in a promotion packet. What wording do you accept, and what do you strike?
- What would have had to be true for the naive covered versus uncovered comparison to be valid?
- If the holdout costs the team real renewals, how do you justify asking for it, and to whom?
Allocate one analyst week across three competing requests
Three requests arrive the same morning and you have one week. Finance wants per-account gross margin from fct_usage_daily for a pricing review in three weeks. Sales wants a renewal-risk list for accounts with term_end_date inside 60 days. A product manager wants an experiment readout for a decision being taken on Thursday. Produce your allocation with hours attached, what you say to whoever receives less, and one thing you refuse to do this week, with the reason each decision is defensible to the person it costs.
Approach
- The interviewer is probing whether you prioritise on decision timing and reversibility or on who asked most forcefully. Sort by the date each decision is actually taken and by what the default outcome is if nothing arrives.
- Apply that sort concretely. The Thursday readout has a hard irreversible deadline and no value afterwards. The pricing review has three weeks of slack. The renewal list has a rolling deadline set by term_end_date, so part of it is urgent this week and the rest is not, which means it can be split rather than deferred whole.
- Find the cheapest sufficient version of each request rather than the full version. The readout goes in full. The renewal list ships as a filtered query over renewal-eligible accounts ranked by two inspectable signals rather than as a model. The margin work is scoped to the accounts that dominate the pricing decision, since revenue is heavily skewed and the tail will not change the conclusion.
- Make the trade visible in one written note to all three at once, with dates. Telling each person separately that they are the priority is how an allocation becomes a credibility problem.
- Refuse something explicitly and say why. The model version of the renewal list is the usual candidate, because it cannot be evaluated without a holdout nobody has agreed to yet, and building it this week forecloses that.
- Leave slack. A plan with none is a plan to miss the one deadline that cannot move.
Follow-up
- The sales leader escalates to your manager. What did you already do that makes that a short conversation?
- Which of the three deadlines would you push back on, and what exactly would you ask for?
- What would you change about how these requests reach you so next week is not the same?
Announce a metric fix that cuts the headline number
Weekly active organisations, the count on the company dashboard, has never excluded rows where dim_account.is_internal is true, and it counts traffic with traffic_class in synthetic_monitor and load_test. Correcting both reduces that count by 11 percent and removes most of the growth reported over two quarters. The figure appears in a board deck and in two teams' quarterly goals, one written on the count and one on the weekly active organisation ratio, whose denominator is accounts whose account_status was in ('trial','free','active_paid') through the week. Decide the order in which you tell people, what the dashboard shows during the transition, and what you propose happens to goals already set against the old definition.
Approach
- The interviewer is probing whether you can land a correction as an operational change with a plan attached, rather than as an announcement other people then have to clean up after.
- Quantify each exclusion separately before telling anyone: internal accounts, synthetic monitors, load tests. Three known quantities are a discussion; one alarming total is an argument.
- Be precise about which side of the metric each exclusion touches, because one team's goal is on a count and the other's is on a ratio. The traffic-class filters remove requests, so they shrink the numerator only. Dropping internal accounts removes them from the ratio's denominator as well, since internal accounts carry ordinary account_status values and therefore sit in that denominator. Internal accounts are active in almost every week while the real base is not, so the numerator loses a larger share than the denominator and the ratio falls by less than the count does. Compute both and say which one the 11 percent is before anybody assumes.
- Check whether the trend changes, not only the level. A constant 11 percent shift is a rebasing and nothing more. A shift that widens over time means the reported growth was partly internal or synthetic, which makes the existing goals unachievable as written and changes what you are asking teams to do.
- Sequence the disclosure: the metric owner and the two teams whose goals move first and privately, then the board channel with a written bridge, then the dashboard. The dashboard is last because a number that changes without explanation is read as instability rather than as a fix.
- Run both series for one reporting period with the bridge visible, restate history rather than letting the series break at a date, and set the date the old series is removed.
- Propose the goal treatment yourself: rebase each target by the shift measured on the metric that target is written against, rather than leaving each team to negotiate individually, which is where corrections of this kind usually die.
Follow-up
- One team's quarterly goal is now unreachable. Rebase the target or let it miss, and what does each choice teach the organisation?
- How would this have been caught when the metric was first defined?
- What else on that dashboard shares this failure mode, and how would you find out this week?
- 01
You are asked for the business impact of a renewal-risk worklist you shipped nine months ago. Customer success used it, and renewals in the covered segment came in 6 points above the prior year. Coverage was assigned by the team itself: they worked the top of your list and also the accounts they were already worried about. Produce the impact claim you are willing to defend, the number you refuse to claim, and the design you would have asked for at the start.
- 02
Three requests arrive the same morning and you have one week. Finance wants per-account gross margin from fct_usage_daily for a pricing review in three weeks. Sales wants a renewal-risk list for accounts with term_end_date inside 60 days. A product manager wants an experiment readout for a decision being taken on Thursday. Produce your allocation with hours attached, what you say to whoever receives less, and one thing you refuse to do this week, with the reason each decision is defensible to the person it costs.
- 03
Weekly active organisations, the count on the company dashboard, has never excluded rows where dim_account.is_internal is true, and it counts traffic with traffic_class in synthetic_monitor and load_test. Correcting both reduces that count by 11 percent and removes most of the growth reported over two quarters. The figure appears in a board deck and in two teams' quarterly goals, one written on the count and one on the weekly active organisation ratio, whose denominator is accounts whose account_status was in ('trial','free','active_paid') through the week. Decide the order in which you tell people, what the dashboard shows during the transition, and what you propose happens to goals already set against the old definition.
Is this an official Viasat interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Viasat. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Viasat has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How difficult is the Data Scientist interview at Viasat?
Candidates generally rate the difficulty as average. While the technical questions are rigorous and cover core machine learning and coding concepts, the interviewers are known to be friendly, helpful, and collaborative, which helps ease candidate anxiety.
PracHub interview research ↗How much preparation time is typical for this interview?
Most successful candidates spend 2 to 3 weeks preparing. This time should be split between reviewing core machine learning algorithms (like overfitting, sampling, and data cleaning), practicing SQL and Python coding, and thoroughly reviewing past resume projects.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the work environment and hybrid policy at Viasat?
Viasat embraces a flexible work environment. Onsite and hybrid work expectations are determined by individual roles and teams. However, certain positions—such as internships or roles handling secure government data—may require consistent onsite presence at a specific office location, such as Carlsbad, CA, San Diego, CA, or San Francisco, CA.
PracHub interview research ↗How long does the hiring process take from application to offer?
The process typically takes between 3 to 5 weeks. It moves efficiently, aided by modern scheduling tools, and candidates are kept informed of their status throughout the various screening and panel rounds.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
Official role evidence, timestamped platform data and clearly labeled preparation advice.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
platform · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Data Scientist practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
platform · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
platform · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
[24]7.ai Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Modeling drills for [24]7.ai data scientist prep: choosing a baseline, reading regression coefficients honestly, handling class imbalance, and defending a model you would actually ship.
Vectra AI Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for Vectra AI data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.
Verse Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Experiment-design practice for Verse data scientist candidates, covering randomisation units, power, minimum detectable effect and the traps that invalidate a result.
Vertafore Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Product-sense practice for a Vertafore data scientist interview: define a B2B software and infrastructure metric, pick its guardrails, and argue why a tempting alternative would mislead you.