I interviewed for the Associate Technical Architect position and while the initial round was professional and gave me confidence in the process, the subsequent round was an extremely disappointing experience. The panel members clearly appeared to be reading out questions directly from the internet and simply matching my responses against what they had in front of them, rather than engaging in a meaningful technical or architectural discussion. For a senior-level role like Associate Technical Architect, this kind of shallow evaluation method is both unprofessional and unacceptable. Instead of assessing practical knowledge, architectural decision-making, or problem-solving abilities, the process felt like a rote Q&A session with little understanding from the panel itself. This left a very poor impression of the company’s hiring standards and seriousness in building strong technical teams. An organization of this scale should ensure that its interviewers are well-prepared, capable of driving deep technical conversations, and focused on evaluating candidates holistically rather than relying on internet-sourced questions. I found the entire experience frustrating, uninspiring, and ultimately not worth pursuing further, which is why I declined to proceed with the opportunity.