Dataford
Interview QuestionsInterview GuidesExperiencesCoaching
New
Pricing
Get started
Dataford
Popular roles
Software EngineerData AnalystData ScientistData EngineerBusiness AnalystAI EngineerMachine Learning EngineerProduct Manager
Browse
Browse All RolesEvery role hub, from analyst to MLBrowse All CompaniesCompany-specific interview loopsAll Interview GuidesThe full guide library
Top questions by role
Software EngineerData AnalystData ScientistData EngineerBusiness AnalystAI EngineerMachine Learning EngineerProduct Manager
Top questions by skill
SQLPythonStatisticsMachine LearningA/B TestingSystem DesignGenerative AIProduct SenseMetricsBehavioral
Browse all questions →Try a mock interview
Experiences
Practice
Mock InterviewsTimed interview simulations with feedbackCoaching1:1 coaching with people at your target companiesSuccess PathYour 6-week structured planModulesCurated lessons by topicWebinarsTalks from ex-Big Tech data leadsPlaygroundA free-form scratch editor
Learn
BlogInterview strategy and career adviceTech Job Market ReportHiring trends across data and AI rolesFor UniversitiesDataford for career centersAbout DatafordWho we are and how we build
Pricing
Build my plan

Design Reels Share-Sheet Experiment

EasyA/B Testing & Experimentation00:00
Practice interviewer
In session
5 left
00:00

Your question is Design Reels Share-Sheet Experiment. Take a moment with it on the right.

Talk me through your thinking if you like. When you're confident, submit your answer and I'll grade it like a real screen (7/10 or better passes).

You need to log in / sign up to chat or submit.

Problem

Context

Meta is considering a change to the Facebook Reels share sheet: moving the most-likely recipients to the top and enlarging the first row of share targets. The team wants to know whether this improves sharing without harming downstream engagement quality.

Hypothesis Seed

The product hypothesis is that a more prominent, personalized share sheet reduces friction and increases the probability that a Reel viewer sends a share. In experimentation terms, this means explicitly balancing the risk of a Type I error (shipping a UI that appears to help but does not truly improve sharing) against a Type II error (failing to ship a genuinely beneficial change because the test is underpowered).

Constraints

  • Eligible traffic: 1.2M Facebook Reels viewers per day globally
  • Only 60% of viewers open the share sheet; randomization must occur before that event to avoid selection bias
  • Maximum runtime: 14 days, including one full weekend cycle
  • The team will only ship if the primary metric improves materially and key guardrails do not regress
  • False positives are costly because a bad share-sheet change can reduce session quality and create spammy sharing; false negatives are also costly because Reels sharing is a strategic growth lever

Deliverables

  1. Define the null and alternative hypotheses, and explain the Type I vs. Type II error tradeoff in this product context.
  2. Specify the primary metric, 2-4 guardrails, at least one secondary metric, and an explicit MDE.
  3. Calculate the required sample size and expected duration using the traffic constraint above.
  4. Choose the unit of randomization and describe the experiment design, including allocation, stratification, and how you will avoid peeking.
  5. Pre-register an analysis plan and a ship / don't-ship rule that respects guardrails, and list the main experimentation pitfalls you would monitor.