As a Data Scientist at Zest AI, you are at the forefront of transforming the financial services industry. Zest AI specializes in machine learning-based credit underwriting, meaning your work directly impacts how lenders assess risk and expand credit access to underserved populations. You will bridge the gap between complex statistical modeling and real-world financial outcomes, ensuring that models are not only performant but also fair and explainable.
The role is highly technical and demands a deep understanding of both machine learning theory and practical application. You will contribute to the development of sophisticated credit scoring models, navigating the unique challenges of high-stakes financial data. By joining the team, you become a critical part of a mission-driven organization that values innovation, analytical rigor, and the ethical deployment of AI in the lending ecosystem.
Initial Screening
reportedMost candidates lose this call inside the first two minutes, during the walkthrough of their own background. The account runs chronologically, sits at the level of tools and titles, and never arrives at a decision anyone could have disagreed with. Anchor on a problem instead of a timeline: what the team could not answer, what you did about it, what happened next. Ninety seconds is enough, and stopping on time leaves room for the half of the call that belongs to you. What you ask about how work gets prioritised signals your level more reliably than the walkthrough does.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your background summary has a shape (problem, decision, consequence) or is a chronological list of tools and employers
- Whether you can account for gaps, short stints and the reason you are looking, unprompted and without hedging
- The substance of the questions you ask back, which an experienced screener reads as a level signal
How to prepare
- Time your opening walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role into a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
- Write one honest sentence for every gap or short stint visible on your resume and offer it before being asked about it
- Prepare questions about how work arrives and gets prioritised: who writes the request, how often priorities change, and what happens to an analysis after it is delivered
Technical Assessments
reportedBefore anything else, this round is a reading test. You are given a small schema and a question phrased in business language, and most of the difficulty sits in the gap between them. Who counts as an active user, does a refunded order still count as an order, is that date column an event time or a load time. Weak answers start typing immediately and compute something precise about the wrong population. Strong ones pin the definition in one sentence, name the column that encodes it, then write the query. On a timed assessment with nobody to tell, write the definition in a comment anyway.
What to demonstrate
- Whether an ambiguous term becomes a specific column and filter before any computation happens
- Whether you read the schema for keys and cardinality rather than only for column names
- Whether the result answers the question at the grain it was asked at, per user or per session or per day
How to prepare
- Take three metrics you already use and write down the exact filter and exact grain behind each, then practise stating one of them in a single sentence out loud
- On a schema you have never seen, spend the first minute writing what one row of each table means and which key it is unique on, then predict which joins can duplicate rows
- Rehearse a version where the definition changes halfway through, and edit the query you have instead of starting over
Onsite/Remote-Onsite Rounds
reportedA loop is not scored one interview at a time. The people you meet compare notes afterwards, usually in a meeting you are not in, and the outcome turns on what each of them can say about you when asked. That rewards something other than survival: every room needs one specific thing worth repeating, and none of them can contradict another. The common way to lose is to tell the same project four times with different numbers in it, or to be uniformly fine in a way that leaves nobody with anything to argue for.
What to demonstrate
- Whether your account of a project survives being told twice, with the same scale, the same metric definition and the same numbers each time
- Whether each interviewer leaves with one concrete claim they could make on your behalf later, rather than an absence of complaints
- Whether a question you already answered in an earlier room gets the same answer at the same depth, without visible impatience
How to prepare
- Write a one-page fact sheet for your two or three main projects that fixes the numbers you will quote: rows of data, the metric as a single sentence, the effect you measured and how long the work took. Say them aloud from the sheet until they come out identical every time
- For each kind of room you expect, decide the one sentence you want that interviewer repeating in a debrief, then check during the mock that you said it outright instead of implying it
- Rehearse answering the same project question twice in one sitting, the second time as though you had not just answered it, because the thing that needs fixing is the flatness that creeps into a repeated story
1 candidate reports. Individual accounts describe a particular role and hiring cycle.
Zest AI Data Scientist Interview Experience — Eight Rounds, Then Ghosted by a Vanishing HR
Let me share the funniest interview experience I've had recently. I saw the posting online and applied on a whim. The recruiter emailed me to reach out. From start to finish there were 8 rounds total. Yes, 8, for a company this small. First was the hiring manager round: resume and machine learning concepts. Then a technical screen. The first question showed a graph where training, testing, and va…
Read full experiencePracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Slicing a flat experiment until a segment reaches significance
Testing one metric across twenty segments at a nominal 5% level produces a significant result about two thirds of the time when nothing is happening anywhere, and the segment that surfaces is by construction the one with the most favourable noise. The reported effect in that slice is then badly overstated, because selection on significance conditions the estimate on being large. What makes it dangerous rather than merely wrong is that a post-hoc segment always has a plausible story attached, so it survives the meeting. The controls are declaring the small number of segments of interest before launch, correcting across the ones tested, and treating anything discovered afterwards as a hypothesis that needs its own adequately-powered test rather than a finding.
Counting on an identity key that changes underneath the metric
visitor_id is per browser and per device, and it resets on cookie clearance, private browsing and platform privacy changes, so the distinct-visitor count drifts upward for reasons unrelated to reach. Any rate with visitors in the denominator therefore decays over time even when behaviour is constant, and any rate with visitors in the numerator inflates. The stitching at signup makes it worse in both directions: a user who signed up on mobile and returns on desktop is two visitors and one user, while a shared device is one visitor and several users. Decide which key each metric is counted on, write it into the definition, and when comparing a period before and after a platform privacy change, expect a level shift in every visitor-keyed metric and do not attribute it to the product.
Accepting a metric definition without asking about the denominator
Pin down the denominator, the eligibility filter and the time window before computing anything: conversion rate per session, per user, per eligible user and per new user are four different numbers with different behaviour. Restate the definition in one sentence and get agreement before you analyse.
Answering a product-sense question with a list of features
Answer with a decision and the measurement that would settle it: the hypothesis, the primary metric, the guardrails, and the result that would make you not ship. A feature brainstorm cannot be wrong, which is exactly why it earns no points.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
What are the implications of multicollinearity in feature selection, a…
What are the implications of multicollinearity in feature selection, and how do you mitigate it?
Approach
- Quantify uncertainty explicitly rather than reporting a point estimate alone.
- Sanity-check the answer against a simple bound or a simulated case.
- Say what the estimate is of, and over what population it generalises.
Follow-up
- How would you explain this result to someone who does not know statistics?
- What sample size would you need to detect an effect half this size?
If an underlying assumption in your credit model changes due to a mark…
If an underlying assumption in your credit model changes due to a market shift, how would you adjust your approach?
Approach
- Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Follow-up
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
- What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
Walk me through the most challenging machine learning project you have…
Walk me through the most challenging machine learning project you have led.
Approach
- Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.
- Set a baseline first, so any model has something honest to beat.
- 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?
How would you explain the trade-off between bias and variance in the c…
How would you explain the trade-off between bias and variance in the context of a credit model?
Approach
- Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
- Pick an evaluation metric that matches the cost of each error type, not a default.
- Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Follow-up
- Where could label leakage enter this setup?
- How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?
Permutation test for a difference in conversion rates
Write a two-sided permutation test from scratch for a difference in conversion rates, using no scipy hypothesis function. Input: a DataFrame with unit_id, variant in {control, treatment} and converted in {0,1}, one row per randomisation unit. Compute the observed difference in proportions, then build the null distribution by reshuffling the variant labels while holding each arm's size fixed. Report the p-value as (1 + the count of permuted statistics at least as extreme in absolute value) / (B + 1) with B at least 10,000, and return the permutation distribution.
Approach
- Name the null being tested: the sharp null that each unit's outcome is the same under either label. That is what licenses permuting labels, and it is stronger than the null of equal means, which matters when someone asks whether the test is valid under unequal variances.
- Extract converted to a single numpy array of 0s and 1s and record n_treatment. Every permutation is then just a reshuffle of one array, and the treatment mean is the mean of the first n_treatment entries of the shuffled array.
- Vectorise the B permutations with rng.permuted on a tiled 2-D array, or with argsort of a (B, n) random matrix. A Python loop calling np.random.shuffle B times is correct but roughly an order of magnitude slower and often runs past the time limit.
- Use the +1 correction in both numerator and denominator. Without it a p-value of exactly 0 is reportable, which is false: the observed labelling is itself one of the permutations, so the smallest attainable p-value is 1/(B+1).
- Compare the resulting p-value against a two-proportion z-test as a sanity check. At these sample sizes they should agree closely; a large divergence means the statistic or the shuffle is wrong, not that the permutation test found something subtle.
Worked solution 25 min
- y = df['converted'].to_numpy(); n_t = (df['variant'] == 'treatment').sum(); obs = y[treat_mask].mean() - y[~treat_mask].mean().
- Build the null: for B draws, shuffle y and take the mean of the first n_t entries minus the mean of the rest.
- p = (1 + (np.abs(null) >= abs(obs) - 1e-12).sum()) / (B + 1), with the small tolerance so exact ties count as at least as extreme.
- Return obs, p and the null array; plot or describe the null to confirm it is centred at 0.
Follow-up
- The arms are 200 and 20,000 units. Does the permutation test stay valid, and what happens to its resolution at B = 10,000?
- Give a 95 percent confidence interval for the difference. Can you get it from this permutation distribution, and if not, what would you run instead?
- The randomisation unit is user_id but the outcome is per session. What breaks, and what is the fix?
Read an experiment from first exposure, not assignment
fct_experiment_exposure holds experiment_id, unit_type, unit_id, variant, user_id, assigned_at_utc, first_exposed_at_utc, is_in_analysis_population and planned_end_utc. fct_event holds user_id, occurred_at_utc, is_core_action, and carries events up to a known data cut, :data_cut_utc. For one experiment randomised on unit_type = 'user', return per variant: exposed units, units with at least one core action in the seven days after that unit's own first exposure, the rate, and the variant share of exposed units. Only units whose seven-day window has fully elapsed as of the data cut belong in the readout. Units appearing under more than one variant are excluded from both arms and counted separately.
Approach
- Run the contamination pass as an aggregate, not a window: SELECT unit_id FROM fct_experiment_exposure WHERE experiment_id = :exp GROUP BY unit_id HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT variant) > 1, then anti-join it away. PostgreSQL rejects COUNT(DISTINCT variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) outright, since DISTINCT is not implemented for window functions; if you want the test inline, MIN(variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) <> MAX(variant) OVER (PARTITION BY unit_id) is the equivalent that does run.
- Do not resolve contamination by keeping the earliest variant. A unit that saw both arms carries treatment from both, so assigning it to either one biases that arm.
- Define the population as is_in_analysis_population = TRUE AND unit_type = 'user' AND first_exposed_at_utc < planned_end_utc AND first_exposed_at_utc + interval '7 days' <= :data_cut_utc. The horizon filter is what makes the readout reproducible next week instead of drifting with every re-run; the data-cut filter is the one that actually buys seven days of follow-up, since a unit exposed an hour before the horizon otherwise contributes an hour of observation to a seven-day rate.
- Measure the outcome on a per-unit relative window: LEFT JOIN fct_event on user_id with is_core_action = TRUE and occurred_at_utc in [first_exposed_at_utc, first_exposed_at_utc + interval '7 days'). LEFT JOIN so units with no outcome stay in the denominator at zero rather than being deleted by an inner join.
- Check the sample ratio before reading the effect: variant share of exposed units against the intended split, tested as a binomial. Run it on the truncated population as well as on the full exposed set, because if one arm exposes later on average the data-cut filter removes more of that arm and can manufacture a ratio mismatch the randomisation did not have. A mismatch on the full set means the exposure data is not a valid randomisation and invalidates the readout rather than being a footnote under it.
- Report the per-variant rate, the absolute difference, and the fact that the variance unit is unit_id. That is straightforward here only because the grain is already one row per user; a per-session outcome under user randomisation would need a delta-method or bootstrap standard error instead.
Follow-up
- Some units were assigned days before they were exposed. What does analysing the assigned set instead do to the estimated effect, and in which direction?
- The split is 51/49 on 400,000 exposed units. Do you read the result?
- The treatment arm exposes on average two days later than control. What does that do to a fixed calendar outcome window, and which arm does it favour?
Pair flow starts to completions within a thirty-minute bound
fct_event holds event_id, flow_id, flow_instance_id, event_name, occurred_at_utc, surface, app_version. Using only rows where event_name is 'flow_started', 'flow_completed' or 'error_shown', compute the daily core-flow completion rate by surface and app_version. Numerator: distinct flow_instance_id whose flow_completed occurs within 30 minutes of its flow_started with no error_shown for the same instance in between. Denominator: distinct flow_instance_id with a flow_started that day. Report rows with a NULL flow_instance_id as a separate coverage count, not inside either side.
Approach
- Collapse the stream to one row per flow_instance_id using conditional aggregation: MIN(occurred_at_utc) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_started') AS started, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'flow_completed') AS completed, MIN(...) FILTER (WHERE event_name = 'error_shown') AS first_error. This makes the 'first' semantics explicit and avoids a self-join entirely.
- Apply the predicates on that single row: completed IS NOT NULL AND completed <= started + interval '30 minutes' AND (first_error IS NULL OR first_error > completed). Note the last clause encodes 'in between' literally, so an error surfaced after a successful completion does not disqualify the attempt.
- Bucket by started::date, surface and app_version. Splitting by app_version is not decoration: a completion-rate regression is nearly always confined to one client build, and a pooled daily rate hides it behind the installed base.
- Count NULL flow_instance_id rows as a separate coverage figure. They cannot be attributed to an attempt at all, so they belong in neither numerator nor denominator, and their share tells you how much of the rate is unmeasurable.
- For any roll-up to week or to all surfaces, re-sum the numerator and denominator rather than averaging the daily rates.
Worked solution 25 min
- Write the per-instance collapse CTE and confirm COUNT(*) equals COUNT(DISTINCT flow_instance_id).
- Add the three predicates one at a time, recording how many instances each removes.
- Aggregate by day, surface and app_version with FILTER on the clean-completion flag.
- Compute the NULL-instance coverage count as a separate select and report it alongside.
- Pick the worst day-surface-version cell and pull ten raw instances to confirm the disqualification reason.
Follow-up
- occurred_at_utc is client-supplied. What do you do with an instance whose completion timestamp precedes its start?
- flow_instance_id is missing on 4 percent of starts for one app_version. What can and cannot you conclude about that build?
- An instance starts at 23:55 and completes at 00:04. Which day owns it, and what does the alternative do to the daily series?
You have a limited set of features; how do you prioritize which ones t…
You have a limited set of features; how do you prioritize which ones to include for maximum impact?
Approach
- Fix the population and the time window before naming any metric.
- Name one primary metric, then the guardrail that stops it being gamed.
- State what result would change your recommendation, so the answer is falsifiable.
Follow-up
- Which segment would you cut first, and what would that rule out?
- How would you detect that the metric is being gamed rather than genuinely improving?
How did you validate your results, and what were the primary limitatio…
How did you validate your results, and what were the primary limitations of your approach?
Approach
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
- Work from the decision backwards to the evidence you would need.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Randomise a shared workspace feature without contaminating control
A feature changes a collaborative surface inside a workspace: when one member uses it, other members of the same account see the result in their own view. You have dim_user (user_id, account_id, is_internal), dim_account (account_id, seats_assigned, lifecycle_status) and fct_event. Among active accounts the mean seats_assigned is 6, the coefficient of variation of that count is 1.5, and the intraclass correlation of the weekly core-action rate within an account is 0.10. Choose the randomisation unit, quantify what that choice costs in sample, and specify how you would compute inference.
Approach
- State the interference before choosing anything: a treated user changes what an untreated colleague sees, so user-level randomisation puts both arms inside one account and biases the contrast toward zero. Randomise on account_id.
- Price the clustering properly. With equal clusters the design effect is 1 + (m - 1) rho = 1 + 5(0.10) = 1.5. Sizes here are far from equal, so use 1 + ((CV^2 + 1) m - 1) rho = 1 + (3.25 x 6 - 1)(0.10) = 2.85. The equal-size shortcut understates the cost by nearly half.
- Decide the estimand before the estimator. An account-weighted mean gives every workspace one vote; a user-weighted mean lets the largest workspaces dominate. With this size skew the two can move in opposite directions, so pick the one the decision needs and write it down.
- Compute standard errors on the account, not the user: cluster-robust on account_id, or collapse each account to a single number and test those. Below roughly 40 clusters per arm, cluster-robust errors are biased downward, so use a wild cluster bootstrap or randomisation inference over the assignment.
- Buy back variance where you can. Stratify assignment by seat band and lifecycle_status before randomising, and decide in advance how the handful of very large accounts are handled, since one enterprise workspace can carry more users than a hundred single-seat ones.
Worked solution 30 min
- Write the interference down: the outcome for user i depends on the treatment of other users in account(i), so the no-interference assumption fails at the user level and holds at the account level.
- Compute both design effects, 1.5 equal-size and 2.85 unequal-size, and use 2.85.
- Take the user-level sample requirement from the proportion shortcut, multiply by 2.85, then divide by the mean of 6 users per account to express it in accounts per arm.
- Specify the analysis: collapse to one row per account, regress the account-level outcome on variant with stratum fixed effects, and use a wild cluster bootstrap for inference.
- State the stopping rule up front: if the required account count exceeds the eligible population, the test is not runnable, and the alternatives are a longer window, a larger target effect, or a non-experimental read.
Follow-up
- Suppose the feature is not workspace-scoped but changes a globally shared ranking model, so no clean cluster exists. What design gets you a causal read, and what does it cost you?
- You have 900 eligible active accounts in total. Given the design effect, what absolute lift can this test detect, and is the honest answer 'do not run it'?
- The intraclass correlation is an estimate from last quarter. What happens to your sizing if the true value is 0.25?
Decide whether a one-day core-action drop is real
A daily dashboard counts distinct fct_event.user_id with is_core_action = TRUE, filtered on occurred_at_utc, and is read at 09:00 UTC. This morning it shows yesterday down 22% against the day before. fct_event is partitioned on received_at_utc. You have fct_event, fct_session and dim_user with thirteen months of history. Deliver a one-paragraph verdict, escalate or do not escalate, with the evidence that settles it, before anyone proposes a product hypothesis.
Approach
- Identify which two weekdays the comparison actually spans, then pull the same weekday-pair transition for the last 52 weeks and place the observed 22% inside that distribution. A day-over-day comparison in a product with a weekday pattern is a comparison of two different populations, so the reference class is the same transition historically, not the prior day.
- Measure partition completeness rather than assuming it. For each of the last 30 days compute the share of that day's occurred_at_utc rows that had landed by 09:00 UTC the following morning, split by surface; mobile clients buffer events offline, so the freshest partition is systematically short and the shortfall is not uniform across surfaces.
- Recompute the same series keyed on received_at_utc. If the drop survives on both keys it is not a lateness artefact; if it exists only on occurred_at_utc it is the partition filling in.
- Check the two exclusion flags before segmenting anything: a change in is_bot_flagged coverage or a batch of is_internal accounts entering or leaving moves a distinct-user count with no user behaviour behind it.
- Only if the movement survives all of the above, begin the segment decomposition. Say explicitly in the verdict which of these four checks the movement passed, so the next reader does not repeat them.
Follow-up
- What publication lag would you set for this dashboard, and how would you derive the number rather than pick it?
- If you switch the metric to received_at_utc, what does that break for anyone comparing to historical figures?
- How would you detect the same problem automatically, so a human does not have to notice it each morning?
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 ↗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 ↗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.
Have two ready. In one, the data was on your side and you had to move someone who outranked you. In the other, the pushback was correct and you changed position. The second is the harder story and it lands better, because it shows you separate being right from being attached to an answer. Name the person's actual objection.
Describe a time you had to balance model complexity with the need for …
Describe a time you had to balance model complexity with the need for interpretability.
Approach
- Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
- Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
Follow-up
- How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
- What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
How do you handle imbalanced datasets, which are common in credit risk…
How do you handle imbalanced datasets, which are common in credit risk modeling?
Approach
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.
- Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
- Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
Quantify your own impact without claiming the topline you touched
You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.
Approach
- Recognise what is being probed: whether you apply to your own work the causal standard you would apply to somebody else's roadmap claim. Nearly everyone who would reject 'accounts that do Y retain better' will write 'I drove a 14% increase' without noticing it is the same error with a friendlier subject.
- Sort the work by the kind of evidence it can carry. The shipped experiment is the only item with a randomised estimate, so it is the only one where an effect size is defensible, and you claim the interval rather than the point estimate.
- Claim the three flat experiments as decisions prevented and price them. Features not built, or built differently, on evidence, with the engineering weeks reallocated as the number somebody else can verify. A defensible null is a delivered decision and should be written as one.
- Claim the definition fix as correctness, not as improvement. The old figure was overstated by a specific percentage and appeared in a specific set of recurring documents; the impact is the change it produced in the forecast built on top of it, not a change in churn itself.
- Claim the dashboard on usage and displacement: distinct weekly users of it, and the ad-hoc request count for six months before against six months after. If the request log does not exist, record the claim as unverified rather than estimating it upward.
- Disclaim the 14% explicitly and once. State that it cannot be separated from seasonality, other teams' launches and a pricing change, and bound your own contribution from above using the shipped experiment's interval converted into headline units.
Follow-up
- Your shipped experiment's interval was +0.2pp to +1.4pp on activation. How much of the 14% can that account for, and how do you say so without undercutting yourself?
- A peer in the same cycle claims the full 14%. What, if anything, do you do about it?
- If you could only keep two of your three claims, which do you drop, and why that one?
- 01
Describe a time you had to balance model complexity with the need for interpretability.
- 02
How do you handle imbalanced datasets, which are common in credit risk modeling?
- 03
You are writing the impact section of your own review. Over the year you ran four experiments, one of which shipped and three of which were flat; you corrected the definition of gross monthly revenue churn so that cancellation is recognised at period_end_utc; and you built a self-serve funnel dashboard. Weekly active accounts rose 14% over the same period. Your reviewer knows the data well. Write the three impact claims you would defend, stating for each what you contributed, what evidence supports it, and what portion of the outcome you are not claiming.
Is this an official Zest AI interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Zest AI. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Zest AI has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How long should I expect the interview process to take?
The process is known to be quite extensive, often involving several weeks and multiple stages. While some candidates move quickly, you should plan for a multi-stage process that requires significant time commitment.
PracHub interview research ↗Is the take-home project a standard part of the process?
Yes, a take-home assignment is a common feature. It is designed to test your hands-on coding and analytical skills. Ensure you dedicate enough time to not just solve the problem, but to create a clear presentation of your findings.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the company culture like?
Zest AI is mission-driven and values technical excellence. Candidates often describe their interviewers as intelligent and focused, though the intensity of the process can be challenging.
PracHub interview research ↗Will I receive feedback if I am not selected?
Candidate experiences regarding feedback vary. While some recruiters are communicative, others may be slow or unresponsive. It is best to treat each round as a learning opportunity and maintain your own record of your performance.
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.
ZEISS Group Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
SQL sets for data scientist prep ahead of ZEISS Group, covering window functions, funnel and retention queries, and the joins that quietly drop the rows you needed.
Zendesk Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
SQL sets for data scientist prep ahead of Zendesk, covering window functions, funnel and retention queries, and the joins that quietly drop the rows you needed.
Zocdoc Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
Communication practice for Zocdoc data scientist candidates: turn an analysis into a recommendation, name the uncertainty honestly, and answer the follow-up a skeptical stakeholder will raise.
Zomato Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026
SQL sets for data scientist prep ahead of Zomato, covering window functions, funnel and retention queries, and the joins that quietly drop the rows you needed.