The interview process was generally smooth, and the interviewers were courteous throughout. The process consisted of four rounds: * Coding / Pseudocode * System Design * Refactoring Legacy Code * Behavioral Interview However, I felt that the evaluation approach followed a very specific pattern of expected answers. If a candidate’s response did not closely align with that pattern, it seemed to negatively impact the outcome. For example, during the system design round, presenting an alternative yet valid solution did not appear to be well received if it differed from the interviewers’ expected approach. Another observation was that, in some cases, a junior engineer led the discussion alongside a senior engineer when interviewing candidates for senior-level roles. At times, this dynamic made the conversation feel less collaborative and more evaluative, rather than an exchange between experienced peers. Additionally, there was significant focus on minor implementation details. Small issues, such as a datatype mismatch or missing validation were highlighted heavily, even when the broader intent was to demonstrate problem-solving ability and modern engineering practices. In the current AI-assisted development era, it felt that the evaluation could have placed more emphasis on architectural thinking, design trade-offs, and overall engineering judgment. During the system design round specifically, the discussion appeared to center strongly on a single preferred solution. This made it challenging to explore or defend alternative designs, even when they were reasonable and technically sound. Overall, while the process itself was organized and the interviewers were professional, the evaluation criteria seemed quite rigid and focused on a predefined playbook rather than encouraging broader technical discussion or diverse solution approaches. I hope for future candidates they look at the overall picture and take a good call rather rejecting people for silly reasons and I got my feedback from the recruiter that, I was not selected and the above reasons were given to me and I did not proactively catch these minor things!

Recruiter call followed by a System Design Interview disguised as Coding Interview with two engineers. The interview was delayed by 10 mins because the main interviewer went AWOL but it still ended on time which honestly was a bit unfair. They presented the interview using a collaborative coding pad but there's really no coding involved, so don't stress about what data structure to use in your class, and make sure you go breadth first by drafting out all endpoints that meet the list of requirements before diving deep into each of them.