Interviewed for Software Engineer - Full Stack role at QAD. The interview process and AI-focused practical format initially sounded modern and interesting. The communication before the interview clearly mentioned an AI-native engineering round focused on problem-solving, AI-assisted development, engineering judgment, and collaboration. However, my actual interview experience was disappointing. The interviewer appeared to be from a recently acquired startup/team under QAD, and the overall communication style felt unprofessional and discouraging. Throughout the session, there were constant interruptions while answering questions, which made it difficult to properly explain my thought process or approach. There were repeated comments like “even freshers can answer this,” delivered in a dismissive tone. Technical pressure and challenging questions are understandable in interviews, but the way they were communicated created an uncomfortable atmosphere rather than a collaborative discussion. Another issue was that although the interview communication strongly emphasized AI-augmented engineering and practical coding, a significant part of the discussion shifted toward system design-related questioning and expectation alignment that did not fully match the original interview brief shared beforehand. Because of the interviewer’s tone and interruptions, I gradually became defensive and uncomfortable during the session. Instead of focusing naturally on solving problems, I found myself trying to guess what exact answers the interviewer expected. QAD’s AI-native interview concept itself has strong potential, but I believe more attention should be given to interviewer professionalism, communication standards, and alignment between the communicated interview format and the actual interview experience — especially when integrating teams from acquired startups/products. A technical interview should challenge candidates while still maintaining professionalism, clarity, and mutual respect.