### 1st Round: HR Discussion The initial impression was a 30-minute HR discussion. The interviewer provided detailed information about the interview process, role expectations, and the company. He ensured I felt comfortable throughout our conversation and ended by giving me the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. It was one of the best HR discussions I've experienced, exemplifying how all HR discussions should be conducted. He seamlessly addressed all his questions as if we had known each other for a long time. I received an invitation for the technical round within 30 minutes, which demonstrated a respect for my time. Rating: I would rate this experience 10/10 - rating 10 does’t mean that it could’t be better but how it was supposed to be , I felt the same way and overall it was nice experience. ### 2st Round: HR Discussion The initial impression was a 30-minute HR discussion. The interviewer provided detailed information about the interview process, role expectations, and the company. He ensured I felt comfortable throughout our conversation and ended by giving me the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. It was one of the best HR discussions I've experienced, exemplifying how all HR discussions should be conducted. He seamlessly addressed all his questions as if we had known each other for a long time. I received an invitation for the technical round within 30 minutes, which demonstrated a respect for my time. Rating: I would rate this experience 10/10 - rating 10 does’t mean that it could’t be better but how it was supposed to be , I felt the same way and overall it was nice experience. **Second Round: Technical Interview (Approximately 1 hr 30 min) with QA Lead (14 years of experience ) The interview began with the interviewer introducing themselves, followed by my introduction. The interviewer ensured a comfortable atmosphere throughout. The session covered various topics, starting with a live automation coding challenge where I was tasked with automating a negative login scenario and asserting the error message. The focus was on implementing different logics using data-driven approaches and maintaining standard automation code quality for scalability. The interviewer evaluated the quality of my locator strategies and asked multiple questions about the assertion message logic using a data-driven approach and the utilization of network tab responses. I handled these questions well, demonstrating my experience. I wrote automation code using Cypress and able to execute and assertion successfully, showcased my ability to write efficient XPaths and locators, and successfully answered almost all cross-questions, including those about network tab response utilization in automation code. Next, the interviewer asked about mobile app testing, which I managed to answer effectively, indicating my practical experience in that area. The interviewer also provided hints that helped me understand what they were looking for in my responses. The interview continued with multiple questions on API testing, including security testing, authentication, how to test and automate APIs, and which automation tools to use. It concluded with a few questions on Java. Overall it was good quality of question to check either candidate have real experience or they are capable enough to handle the problem. Rating for interview quality question, process and experience: 8/10 ### Interview result and Feedback: Not selected for next round “Candidate was good exposure mostly around payment and healthcare domains. He has worked with a good tech stack and has experience in majority of the tools Manual testing - Answered questions satisfactorily (7.5/10) Situational scenario - Imagine you are EM and have 1 QA, how would you achieve insprint automation. Was able to respond correctly at the very end. API testing - Good exposure, but did not answer much around security of API's Automation exp - Has good experience , lacks in problem solving skills . Mobile testing- What scnearios would you consider while testing the integration between mobile app and device. Not good response I had to give him clues at quite a number of points, which was a bit downside for his profile. Code Challenge - 1. Was able to run the script satisfactorily 2. Problem solving was not at par compared to other candidates or our expecations Communication was average" Received feedback on same day : I would like to thank again for the quick process and feedback, that showcase again respect of time and efforts of candidate. Also received a link for schedule a call if need further discussion on Feedback. I have booked appointment for the next day and discuss about the feedback with HR

During the interview, I noticed that both QAs maintained a very serious and strict demeanour. While it’s important to thoroughly assess candidates, creating a more relaxed and welcoming atmosphere can significantly improve the candidate experience. For instance, when I struggled to answer some questions, the visible disappointment and instances of turning off the camera made the situation quite stressful. In my experience conducting interviews, both in my current role and previous roles, I’ve found that a friendly and encouraging approach helps candidates perform their best and presents our organization in a positive light. I believe the current QA Engineers demonstrated a poor attitude, coming across as somewhat arrogant. This might have been my personal experience or a mismatch with the workspace culture. However, I highly recommend that they receive training on conducting interviews or have a recruiter present during the process, especially given their leadership roles.