I provided multiple solutions to the interviewers, and my solutions passed all test cases. However, the feedback stated a "lack of the ability to analyze and solve the problem."

I spoke aloud and well-explained my thought process to the interviewers before implementing any code. I was communicating and making assumptions while coding, yet the feedback result was a "lack of communication."

I asked the interviewers which solutions they preferred, giving them a choice. Their answer was "up to you," but the feedback stated, "did not listen to the tips from interviewers and still went ahead with the candidate's thoughts."

To be honest, I used the same strategy to pass the technical screen in the second round: analyzing the problem, making assumptions on edge cases, providing solutions, and letting them pick their preferred one for implementation. I don't understand why I am receiving completely opposite feedback in this onsite pair-coding round.

If you disagree with my strategy or style, please fail me in the second round, not after I spent weeks preparing and was rejected with this ridiculous excuse. Thank you.

Aside from the unhappy experience in the onsite pair-coding session, there is another matter I would like to mention. I was applying for an Intermediate level (L4) position, but my onsite interview was scheduled as Senior level (L5). I was then rejected for being "below the bar." Seriously?

The recruiter told me they were using this system to hire for other similar positions and that I should not worry about it. However, I am still unsure about the bar the interviewers used for my evaluation (L4 or L5). The final onsite process felt very unprofessional.