25Fuzzy-match entities across two customer lists: normalization, edit distance, and scaling past O(n×m)▼hardPalantirScaleGlean1 replies◆ premiumPalantir's bread and butter: 'Acme Corp.' and 'ACME Corporation, Inc.' are the same customer; prove it in code. Normalization does more work than the clever algorithm, and blocking is what makes it run before the heat death of the universe.Open full answer →
69A bank wants one fraud model across three systems it acquired. Each one labeled fraud differently. Scope the first 90 days.▼hardNewPalantirScaleDatabricks2 replies◆ premiumEveryone spots that the customer records need resolving. The failure that actually sinks this project is quieter: the word fraud means three different things in the three datasets, so the union of their labels trains a model that is confidently wrong.Open full answer →
27Two customer lists, millions of rows, no shared key, names and emails almost match. Dedupe and merge them.▼hardPalantirRetoolDatabricks1 replies◆ premiumPalantir's home turf: entity resolution disguised as a dedupe task. The naive O(n²) comparison is the trap, blocking, match scoring, transitive closure, and the golden-record question are where the interview actually happens.Open full answer →
18Decompose: merge patient records across a network of hospitals.▼hardPalantirDatabricksMicrosoft2 replies○ sign inThe purest data-modeling prompt Palantir asks, the whole interview lives in the entity-resolution edge cases. Twins, maiden names, shared insurance IDs... and one architectural decision about merging that candidates get fatally wrong.Open full answer →
41Decompose: detect coordinated fraud rings, not just individual fraudulent transactions.▼hardPalantirStripeAnthropic1 replies◆ premiumPer-account scoring catches the lone fraudster and misses the ring whose accounts each look clean. The strong answer reframes the problem as a graph, makes entity resolution the step everything else depends on, and treats a flagged ring as a case for an investigator, not an automatic block.Open full answer →
46Your agent issued a refund to the wrong customer. The tool call succeeded, the schema validated, and the eval says the task passed. Find it.▼hardNewAnthropicSierraGlean4 replies◆ premiumEvery control in the stack validates the shape of the action and none validates its target. A refund of the right amount, to a real customer, through a permitted tool, against the wrong account, is indistinguishable from success at every layer that is watching.Open full answer →