AI-native. You use AI daily for SQL, dbt, and pressure-testing your analysis, extending the skills already running our experimentation process rather than merely using them. This is unlikely to be a good fit if you’re skeptical of AI or treat your workflow as fixed.
A partner, not a report-writer. You don’t wait for a ticket. You sit close to Growth and bring the question before anyone asks it. Skip this one if you want a clear queue with no expectation to push back.
Statistically sharp. Wrong fit if “we hit significance” ends your analysis instead of starting it. Right fit if you have a point of view on test design (power, significance, novelty and interaction effects, when not to test) and can explain a broken experiment in plain terms.
Fluent in experiment instrumentation. You know how Segment events and Flagsmith randomization interact, and catch a tracking problem before a test ships, keeping our re-run rate down. This isn’t for you if instrumentation is someone else’s job.
Fluent in the funnel. You think in CAC, LTV, and channel economics, and know acquisition data’s quirks: attribution messiness, seasonality, channel mix. Skip this one if your background is pure product-feature analytics.
Technically self-sufficient. Wrong fit if you need clean data handed to you. Expert SQL, enough Python to automate the stat-sig math, and comfort in dbt and Lightdash, building your own models without waiting on data engineering.
Influences without authority. PMs and marketers act on what you find because your insight is clear and honest about uncertainty. This isn’t for you if you consider the job done once the analysis ships, regardless of outcome.