Initial telephone interview with HR, who gave a basic overview of the company and checked general interest in the role and company. Then a more technical call with Head of Engineering, basic questions about component structure, and some other minor things, no deep dive (for a Senior role). Then a full day interview, involving a couple of chats with: PM, CTO, Head of Eng, as well as two technical pairing sessions, this all was mostly fine and helpful. However, one pairing session was - IMO - a naive attempt at assessing skill; where a problem that the interviewer had previously tackled and considered difficult, was believed to be a good assessment in asking the interviewee to come to the same conclusion - which effectively involved Googling and reviewing GitHub issue comments... The problem with this style of assessment is that the interviewee may have no context and/or experience in the test framework, codebase, or framework in question, not to mention how an interviewee learns about subjects - not all people learn just-in-time. Believing this is a good assessment of skill, etc - again IMO - is a case of not knowing what one knows, or needs to know, to complete a task, which makes for bias from the outset. It's hard to find the right balance, but that's interviewing. In addition, using another developer's machine / setup breaks all muscle memory, leaning across a keyboard to type, etc - just makes for an awkward session. A day rate was promised but didn't materialise. Main issue: no useful post-interview feedback, which was delayed too.