The first interview was a standard conversation about my background, previous experience, and responsibilities.

The second stage was a Codility assessment with three LeetCode-style coding tasks. I solved two successfully. The third was a debugging exercise, where I took a different approach and rewrote the solution instead of fixing the supplied code. That submission did not pass.

What disappointed me most was the assessment format. It felt dated, especially now that AI coding tools have changed how developers work. I had expected some manual review and discussion of my reasoning, but there was no indication that my approach was considered beyond the test result.

As far as I could tell, nothing prevented me from using AI to complete the assessment. That left me wondering whether this format disadvantages candidates who solve the tasks independently. If candidates can use AI to get through while those working without it are judged solely on their test results, what is the process actually selecting for?

For a company like N26, I expected a process more focused on practical engineering judgment and problem-solving. I came away questioning how much this assessment actually reveals about someone’s ability to do the job.

My advice to future candidates: don’t make my mistake of assuming that an alternative approach or your reasoning will be considered beyond the automated result. Clarify the rules on AI use and how submissions are reviewed before taking the assessment.