← Decagon Interview Insights

Decagon·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

Intermediate
May 2026

Summary

Decagon software engineer interview with a coding problem centered on a rolling-window CSAT tracker. Pretty much one meaty design-plus-implementation question, and they wanted you to talk through tradeoffs out loud the whole time.

Questions Asked (1)

Q1

Design and implement a CSATTracker class that records customer satisfaction scores and returns a rolling average over a configurable time window. Discuss your data structure choice and the time and space complexity of each operation.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

I went with a deque of (timestamp, conversation_id, score) tuples sorted by arrival time, which felt right.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying requirements: what operations are needed (record score, get rolling average), how the time window is configured, and expected data volume. Then propose a data structure like a queue (or deque) combined with a running sum to achieve O(1) amortized time for both operations, and analyze the trade-offs versus alternatives like a circular buffer or a balanced BST.

Pro tip: Mention that you would use a timestamp-based eviction strategy (e.g., removing entries older than the window) and discuss how to handle edge cases like out-of-order timestamps or empty windows. This shows attention to real-world robustness.

1. Clarify Requirements

Ask about the expected number of records, the granularity of timestamps, whether the window is fixed or sliding, and if scores can be updated or deleted. This ensures you design the right solution.

2. Choose Data Structure

Propose a queue (or deque) to store (timestamp, score) pairs, along with a running sum of scores within the window. Explain why this gives O(1) amortized time for adding and O(1) for querying the average.

3. Implement Operations

Describe the addScore method: append the new score, update the running sum, and evict expired entries from the front while their timestamp is outside the window. Describe getAverage: return sum / count if count > 0, else 0 or null.

4. Analyze Complexity

State that both operations are O(1) amortized time (each element is added and removed once) and O(n) space where n is the maximum number of records in the window. Compare with alternatives like a sorted list (O(log n) insert) or a heap (O(log n) for eviction).

5. Discuss Trade-offs and Edge Cases

Mention potential issues: out-of-order timestamps, clock skew, and concurrency. Suggest solutions like using a monotonic clock, buffering out-of-order entries, or adding locks for thread safety.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of a queue/deque to maintain insertion order and efficient removal from the front.
  • Maintaining a running sum to avoid O(n) computation for each average query.
  • Time complexity: O(1) amortized for addScore and getAverage; space complexity: O(n) where n is the number of records in the window.
  • Handling of expired entries based on timestamp relative to the current time or the latest timestamp.
  • Edge cases: empty window, out-of-order timestamps, and concurrent access.
  • Comparison with alternative data structures like circular buffers, balanced BSTs, or heaps, and their trade-offs.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.