Had a typical recruiter screen, followed by a 1 hour technical interview combining questions about experience with live coding. The live coding portion contained three questions, though I didn't know that going in. Each question sort of built on the previous one. The first two questions were relatively easy for an experienced engineer, meaning not crazy leetcode type problems. I solved them fine and didn't waste much time at all. However, finishing those 2 of course took up a good amount of the time allotted, so I was sort of surprised when asked the third question, knowing there wasn't much time (maybe 5 minutes) and it was the trickiest one. That caused me some brain freeze and I wasn't able to finish that last one. Still, I felt I had definitely proved that I was a strong coder and more than capable of that aspect of the job. But I was not moved to the next round. So I was not a fan of that as I feel interviews should be about figuring out whether someone has the technical ability to do the job rather than just requiring perfection in an interview environment. I thought the questions were fine and a good step in that direction, but then if they are going to ask three questions maybe they should forgo the discussion part at the beginning to leave enough time or just have some more leeway and understanding given those constraints.