Pros: The process started well. The HR screening and initial 45-minute Hiring Manager interview were professional, covering role expectations and background. The discussion aligned well with the position scope. Cons: The final Group Panel (45 mins) is where the process drifted off track significantly. 1. Misaligned Assessment Scope: The case study was positioned as a conceptual, approach-driven discussion (requirements, assumptions, governance, and design thinking). However, the panel treated it as a hands-on implementation review. The questioning shifted from "How would you design this?" to "Have you already built this in a dev org?" with deep-dive developer-level questions. There was a clear disconnect between the prompt (Strategy/Design) and the evaluation (Execution/Code). 2. Panel Unpreparedness & Lack of Facilitation: The panel members appeared partially unprepared for the case study materials, needing clarification from each other on the use case I was presenting. Furthermore, the Hiring Manager did not actively facilitate. At the start of the presentation, the Hiring Manager appeared visibly disengaged/distracted. Despite my efforts to re-engage them through eye contact, they were not present in the moment. 3. Role Boundary Blur: Engineering-driven questioning dominated the session and overly assessed my developer skills which isn't part of the job expectation as a system admin. Without the Hiring Manager stepping in to re-anchor the discussion, the interview evaluated me on developer-level mechanics rather than the advertised role scope. Advice to Management: Ensure your panel has actually read the case study before the candidate enters the room, and decide beforehand if you want a Strategic Design or a Live Build. Assessing for one while asking for the other is unfair.