Experience: The process started fine with a straightforward coding task, but things became difficult during the architectural and behavioral rounds. In the Deep Dive, I shared a story about fixing issues caused by poor leadership. Even though the interviewer seemed to listen and appear empathetic, I realized later they only value stories where you have total control over the product. They seem to have a "checkbox" for the perfect story that doesn't always match the reality of how engineering dynamics and navigating office politics works in the real world. System Design: This round was the most frustrating. I tried to design the system using Separation of Concerns to keep it clean and maintainable. The interviewer completely disagreed and insisted that everything be bundled together because that’s how they do it there. It wasn't a real discussion; it felt like there was only one "right" answer (their answer), and they weren't open to hearing any other perspective. Final Thoughts: The interviewers I met had been at the company for 10+ years, and it showed. They have a very fixed mindset about how things should be done. Rather than looking for a skilled engineer who can think for themselves, they seemed to be looking for someone who already agrees with their specific internal habits. It felt like I was being interviewed for how things were done a decade ago, not for how modern engineering teams actually operate. If you don't use their specific approach or have the exact "hero story" they want, you likely won't pass, regardless of your actual skills.