I exactly don't know how many steps are there in the entire hiring process. Initially there was a HR screening round followed by a technical interview of 2 hours. At the end there was a feedback session for approx. 30 mins. My experience about the technical interview was not positive. A) Lack of coordination between interviewers During the interview, I was asked to explain a specific code implementation in detail. I provided a comprehensive explanation based on the request. However, a subsequent interviewer indicated that code-level explanation was not the expectation—rather, they were looking for high-level architecture. This contradiction left me uncertain about which assessment was accurate and what the actual evaluation criteria were. Going forward, I'd recommend a brief pre-interview sync among the panel to align on scope and expectations (e.g., code-level vs. architecture-level discussion). B) Lack of structure and clarity The interview lacked a clear structure or guardrails. There was minimal upfront clarity regarding the topics, case study scope, or the flow of discussion. While I understand the value of exploring ambiguous scenarios, productive conversations require some foundational clarity and framework. Without this, it's difficult for candidates to calibrate their responses appropriately. A brief agenda—even a simple one—would help set expectations and reduce ambiguity. C) Active listening gaps I mentioned my approach to MCP and MVP(Minimum Viable Product) mindset multiple times throughout the discussion, as I felt it was relevant to the problems being discussed. However, in the feedback, one interviewer noted that I had not mentioned POC (Proof of Concept) or MCP methodology. This disconnect suggests the feedback may not have been grounded in the actual conversation. I recommend that interviewers take brief notes or paraphrase candidate points to ensure mutual understanding during the discussion. D) Time management and communication The interview was scheduled for 2 hours. After the allotted time ended, I was asked to wait an additional 30 minutes for a feedback session (which included a 10-minute wait). This created unexpected time pressure before my next meeting and was not communicated in advance. I'd suggest either: (a) building feedback time into the original time allocation and communicating this upfront, or (b) scheduling feedback as a separate follow-up. Summary These issues are not reflections of the role or company, but rather process gaps that I believe are worth addressing. A more structured, coordinated, and time-conscious interview process would benefit both candidates and the hiring team.