The initial HR stage was handled professionally and made a good first impression. Unfortunately, the second in-person interview was a very different experience. One panel member arrived significantly late and joined mid-session, proceeding to sit with their feet propped up high — a posture that came across as arrogant and deeply disrespectful. What was particularly frustrating was the moment another interviewer was still in the middle of asking me a question, this late-arriving panel member abruptly cut in with "OK, that's enough" — without the other interviewer's acknowledgment, and without giving me any opportunity to complete my answer. The session was hijacked mid-flow, leaving the process feeling chaotic and dismissive. The questions themselves were rigid and memory-focused, and appeared to be pulled from a generic question bank rather than tailored to the candidate's actual background or experience. This meant that even someone who had genuinely done the work could be marked down simply for not recalling a specific detail on the spot — which is a test of memory, not capability. When I described my approach to tasks — including direct, practical involvement — the panel seemed to assume I was purely a coordinator or ticket distributor, dismissing the technical depth behind the work without giving me the chance to clarify. This kind of process doesn't test real capability. It favours candidates who perform well under interruption and pressure, while shutting out experienced professionals who simply needed a moment to be heard. A fair interview should create space for genuine dialogue — not reduce years of hands-on experience to whether you can recall the right words under pressure.