ORIGINAL SYSTEM DESIGN QUESTION
Payment webhook reconciliation
Consume provider payment events and maintain an auditable order payment state.
Original exercise · intermediate. Editorial role relevance does not imply a company has asked this question.
Requirements and constraints
- Two million events/day; bursts of 2,000 events/second.
- Events may duplicate or reorder; webhook receipt is not proof of settlement.
- State assumptions and justify security, cost, operational ownership and data retention.
Pressure round
A refund arrives before the delayed successful-payment event.
Build and explain the design
Requirements & scope
Who uses it? What must it do? What is explicitly out of scope? State latency, durability and privacy goals.
Self-review guidance
Define the actors, required operations and out-of-scope behavior. Explicit requirement: Events may duplicate or reorder; webhook receipt is not proof of settlement.
Capacity estimates
State assumptions, peak requests/second, data volume and retention. Show your arithmetic and units.
Self-review guidance
Use this workload: Two million events/day; bursts of 2,000 events/second. Convert rates and payload sizes into peak compute/storage assumptions; show units, headroom and what remains unmeasured.
APIs & data model
Describe endpoints/events, entity keys, indexes, authorization, and idempotency.
Self-review guidance
Define event deduplication keys, verified provider identity and order transitions.
Architecture & data flow
Describe components and request/event paths. Use plain text arrows to sketch your design; explain each responsibility.
Self-review guidance
Use durable ingestion, event processing and periodic provider reconciliation.
Failures & observability
What happens on overload, duplicate events, partial failures or lost dependencies? Discuss monitoring and recovery.
Self-review guidance
Pressure-test: A refund arrives before the delayed successful-payment event. Describe bounded recovery, deduplication, observability and a user-visible failure state.
Tradeoffs & alternatives
Compare two plausible approaches. State the costs, consistency model and what would make you change the design.
Self-review guidance
Compare event-time ordering, provider state lookup and monotonic transition rules.
Design guidance describes assumptions and tradeoffs; no architecture has been simulated or benchmarked.
Practice this question
Save your work privately, explain decisions and return to your revision queue.
Open practice workspaceBrowse the question library →