The process began through a consultant, and the first round was a very positive experience. Although it was scheduled for 30 minutes, it extended to over an hour due to an engaging and in-depth discussion. It felt meaningful and technically enriching. The second round, however, was a completely different experience. It was scheduled with senior leadership (QA Director/VP level), and two panelists joined the call. From the start, the tone felt rigid and unwelcoming. The interview was limited to the scheduled 30 minutes and lacked the depth and openness of the first round. They focused heavily on GenAI-related topics. I clearly explained my hands-on experience, including work on agentic systems and RAG-based solutions, and answered all their questions. However, the questions themselves were quite basic and seemed to be directly sourced from common online material, without any deeper exploration or follow-up discussion. Despite providing complete answers, I was not selected, which was surprising given the nature of the interaction. It also came to my attention that this position has been open for over three months, which raises concerns about the clarity of their expectations or evaluation approach. My suggestion would be: if there is limited internal expertise in GenAI, it may be more effective to evaluate candidates through structured assignments or practical assessments rather than surface-level questioning. Additionally, a balanced evaluation that includes traditional QA and automation expertise along with emerging areas like AI would make the process more meaningful. Overall, the experience felt like a waste of valuable time, especially in the second round. In hindsight, even the effort invested in the first round now feels less worthwhile.