The interviewers remained tight-lipped. Most interviews were very non-interactive.

They primarily read out questions as if filling out a matrix, showing little interest in the answers, even during discussion-based sessions like behavioral, architectural, and algorithms.

In the behavioral round, a very senior designate lacked technical knowledge but asked technical questions based on incorrect knowledge or assumptions, leading to misaligned discussions.

The Progex session was also very non-interactive, mirroring the initial take-home assignment. It seems this session exists mainly to verify the interviewee's authenticity. Otherwise, there was minimal interaction. Interviewers read out the assignment and then muted themselves, stating, "If you ask for any clarifications, we will refer you back to the written question statement. We are here mostly to address any HackerRank environment issues."

Most interviewers, especially those conducting code reviews, avoided answering clarifying questions, preferring to "beat around the bush." This suggests a non-collaborative environment for a software development company.

This experience falls short of expectations for a high-quality company's interview process, or perhaps my expectations were misguided.

Search, count, and sort the count of matching words from multiple input strings.

Autocomplete functionality based on given strings and search word prefixes.

Code review question with a count of retrieved data, a backend, and a simple frontend script.