They were standard interview questions and had friendly interviewers. It was a 3 stage process, online test and 2 video calls. The communication was prompt between stages. The experience was positive overall.

The interview process for this position left much to be desired, characterized by outdated assessment methods and irrelevant evaluations that failed to adequately gauge candidates' suitability for the role. The initial phase involved a multiple-choice test, which, regrettably, proved to be both facile and inconsequential in relation to the actual demands of the job. Following this, I engaged in sequential meetings with key stakeholders, including the team manager and the tech team lead. While these discussions provided some insight into the expectations and dynamics of the role, they did little to mitigate the shortcomings of the earlier assessment phase. The culmination of the process involved an interview with the HR department, which ultimately led to a job offer. However, the disjointed nature of the interview stages and the glaring mismatch between the evaluation methods employed and the job requirements underscored a systemic flaw in the hiring process. As a subsequent employee, it became evident that the initial assessment failed to accurately predict job performance or aptitude, thus raising questions about the efficacy and validity of the interview process. Moving forward, there is a clear imperative to reassess and refine the recruitment methodology to ensure alignment with the competencies and demands of the role, thereby fostering a more effective and equitable selection process for all candidates.