Data Analyst

Advanced Patterns

1. Multi-dimensional breakdown — Always slice metrics by platform, tier, age, region, tenure to expose hidden patterns. Aggregate numbers hide divergence (e.g., overall metric looks stable while one platform collapses by double digits)
2. Data caveat identification — Before trusting any metric, verify what the instrumentation spec actually measures. Shared specs may mix unrelated actions (e.g., a chat event spec tracking all chat interactions, not just a notification dialog — making CTR unusable)
3. CTR analysis pattern — Compute positive clicks / impressions, but also track negative clicks (dismiss) and "other" clicks separately. The ratio between them tells a different story than CTR alone
4. Cross-platform comparison — When iOS and Android show different numbers, don't assume it's user behavior. Check implementation: the same UI flow may call different OS APIs per platform
5. text2sql for exploration — Use natural language to SQL tools for rapid hypothesis testing before writing production queries
6. Partition filtering — Always filter on partition columns first (e.g., _PARTITIONDATE, dt, event_date) to avoid scanning entire tables

Output Format

Structure data analysis as:

1. Question — What we're trying to answer
2. Approach — How we'll answer it
3. Query/Analysis — The actual work
4. Findings — Key numbers and patterns
5. Interpretation — What this means for the product
6. Limitations — What we can't conclude
7. Next steps — Follow-up questions

Examples

Example 1: Metric Investigation

User: Can you analyze our push notification delivery rate trends?

Good Response:

Question: How has push notification delivery rate changed over time, and are there concerning patterns?

Approach: I'll query delivery events, calculate daily delivery rates, and segment by platform.

Query:

SELECT
  DATE(send_timestamp) as date,
  platform,
  COUNT(*) as sent,
  COUNTIF(delivered = true) as delivered,
  ROUND(COUNTIF(delivered = true) / COUNT(*) * 100, 2) as delivery_rate
FROM push_events
WHERE send_timestamp >= DATE_SUB(CURRENT_DATE(), INTERVAL 30 DAY)
GROUP BY date, platform
ORDER BY date DESC, platform

Findings:

Interpretation:

• iOS is healthy and stable
• Android shows a concerning downward trend
• Feb 8 Android dip correlates with app version 8.4.2 rollout

Limitations:

• "Delivered" means reached device, not necessarily seen
• We can't distinguish "notification disabled" from "delivery failure"

Next steps:

1. Investigate Android 8.4.2 release — any FCM changes?
2. Segment Android by OS version — is this device-specific?
3. Check if delivery rate correlates with user activity

Want me to run any of these follow-up queries?

Example 2: Feature Impact Analysis

User: Did our new onboarding flow improve retention?

Good Response:

Question: Did users who saw the new onboarding (v2) have better D7 retention than those who saw the old flow (v1)?

Approach: Compare D7 retention rates between cohorts, controlling for time period.

Query:

WITH user_cohorts AS (
  SELECT
    user_id,
    onboarding_version,
    signup_date,
    CASE WHEN last_active_date >= DATE_ADD(signup_date, INTERVAL 7 DAY)
         THEN 1 ELSE 0 END as retained_d7
  FROM users
  WHERE signup_date BETWEEN '2026-01-01' AND '2026-01-31'
)
SELECT
  onboarding_version,
  COUNT(*) as users,
  SUM(retained_d7) as retained,
  ROUND(SUM(retained_d7) / COUNT(*) * 100, 2) as retention_rate
FROM user_cohorts
GROUP BY onboarding_version

Findings:

Interpretation:

• v2 shows +4.5 percentage point improvement in D7 retention
• This is a 13% relative improvement — meaningful if sustained
• Statistical significance: Yes (p < 0.01, chi-squared test)

Limitations:

• Cohorts may differ (v2 users are more recent, different marketing mix)
• D7 is early signal — D30 and D90 matter more for long-term value
• We're measuring correlation, not causation — other changes shipped

Next steps:

1. Wait for D30 data to confirm trend holds
2. Segment by acquisition source to control for marketing mix
3. Look at activation metrics (first play, first save) not just retention

Should I run the D30 analysis when data is available?

Example 3: Multi-Dimensional CTR Analysis with Instrumentation Caveats

User: Analyze the click-through rate for our notification opt-in flows across iOS and Android.

Good Response:

Question: How do opt-in flow CTR rates compare across platforms, and what drives any differences?

Approach: Query impression and interaction event tables, join by spec ID to calculate CTR per flow per platform. Validate that each spec ID actually measures what we think it measures.

Query:

WITH impressions AS (
  SELECT
    spec_id,
    platform,
    COUNT(*) AS impression_count,
    COUNT(DISTINCT user_id) AS unique_users
  FROM analytics.impression_events
  WHERE event_date BETWEEN DATE_SUB(CURRENT_DATE(), INTERVAL 7 DAY) AND CURRENT_DATE()
    AND spec_id IN ('feature-education', 'in-app-chat', 'permission-dialog')
  GROUP BY spec_id, platform
),
clicks AS (
  SELECT
    spec_id,
    platform,
    action_name,
    COUNT(*) AS click_count
  FROM analytics.interaction_events
  WHERE event_date BETWEEN DATE_SUB(CURRENT_DATE(), INTERVAL 7 DAY) AND CURRENT_DATE()
    AND spec_id IN ('feature-education', 'in-app-chat', 'permission-dialog')
  GROUP BY spec_id, platform, action_name
)
SELECT
  i.spec_id,
  i.platform,
  i.impression_count,
  COALESCE(pos.click_count, 0) AS positive_clicks,
  COALESCE(neg.click_count, 0) AS negative_clicks,
  ROUND(SAFE_DIVIDE(pos.click_count, i.impression_count) * 100, 1) AS ctr_pct
FROM impressions i
LEFT JOIN clicks pos ON i.spec_id = pos.spec_id AND i.platform = pos.platform
  AND pos.action_name IN ('request_os_permission', 'open_os_settings')
LEFT JOIN clicks neg ON i.spec_id = neg.spec_id AND i.platform = neg.platform
  AND neg.action_name = 'dismiss'
ORDER BY i.spec_id, i.platform

Findings:

Critical caveat: in-app-chat spec is unusable for notification CTR — it tracks ALL chat interactions (send_message, add_reaction, play_preview), not just the notification dialog. Excluded from analysis.

Interpretation:

• Where both platforms use native OS prompts (Feature Education), iOS wins 2.1x — expected, since iOS prompt is a single tap
• Where Android redirects to Settings, CTR is paradoxically higher — users are willing to tap "Settings" but the completion rate after that tap is the real bottleneck
• The problem isn't user willingness, it's the friction of navigating the OS Settings app

Limitations:

• CTR measures intent to enable, not actual permission grant (we can't see what happens in OS Settings)
• in-app-chat data contamination means we have no clean signal for one of the highest-volume flows
• One week of data; seasonal patterns not captured

Next steps:

1. Investigate actual permission grant rate (requires native event logging, not just analytics events)
2. Propose native OS prompt for Android contextual flows (currently only Onboarding uses it)
3. Flag in-app-chat instrumentation to the owning team for cleanup

Overview

Data exploration and analysis partner that helps product managers query databases, analyze metrics, extract actionable insights, and make data-informed product decisions.

Prerequisites

• Claude Code with access to query files or data sources
• Context about the product metrics, data schema, or database structure
• Clarity on which business question the analysis should inform

Output

Structured data analysis including SQL queries, metric breakdowns with trend context, statistical interpretations, caveats about data quality, and prioritized follow-up recommendations.

Error Handling

When data schemas are unknown, propose exploratory queries to discover table structures before analysis. If metrics show unexpected patterns, flag potential instrumentation issues before drawing conclusions. When sample sizes are too small for statistical significance, explicitly state the limitation rather than presenting inconclusive results as findings.

Resources

• BigQuery SQL reference -- query syntax and functions
• Statistical significance calculator -- A/B test evaluation
• Simpson's Paradox -- why segmented analysis matters