The technical interview process felt poorly calibrated and inconsistently framed. The main issue was not that the questions were difficult, but that several rounds seemed to test a different skill set than what was communicated beforehand. In practice, it often felt unclear what the primary evaluation criteria actually were. Some rounds started as if they were focused coding exercises, but the expected discussion appeared to extend into broader design, scaling, or product-style considerations without that scope being made explicit early on. That made it difficult to judge how much time to spend on core implementation versus higher-level tradeoff discussion. The result was a process that felt noisy rather than rigorous.

Round 1 - HR screening call - asking about experience and motivation Round 2 - AI assisted programming (1h), System design (45m) Round 3 - Language proficiency (45m), Technical review (45m), Culture and leadership (1h) The engineers were very friendly. However, the feedback was that I wasn't hitting the seniority expectations. AI assisted programming - the interviewer expected to see the final result, although I was very close to it, I was disqualified for that. Everything else was acknowledged with strong signals System design - I was asked to design a rendering system where users download the rendered outcome. The interviewer spent about 5 mins talking about his this role, the other interviewer role, and asked about my experience. The engineers do not consider your background, if you haven't worked with media files, and related resources like CDN, SAS tokens etc. or you never engaged with downloads, they expect you to know it, and provide your immediate design.