went through a two-stage interview process. The first interview was constructive and encouraging, with a clear understanding of my background in Finance Audit and my current transition into Technology and IT audit. That initial discussion allowed for open dialogue around experience, learning approach, and how existing analytical skills could translate into the role. The second interview differed noticeably in both tone and focus. discussion was largely centred on technical IT audit topics, with a structured questioning style that allowed limited opportunity to expand on answers or provide broader context. While I attempted to explain how my audit, risk, and analytical experience could be applied in a technology-focused environment, the interview with Kirthanaformat did not allow much space to explore transferable skills or adaptability. I was transparent about areas where I am still developing technically, as had already been discussed in earlier stages. The second interview focused primarily on those technical areas, which made it more difficult to demonstrate problem-solving ability, learning mindset, or potential to grow into the role over time. Overall, the experience highlighted a clear contrast between interview stages. Candidates who are transitioning between audit disciplines or building technical depth alongside a strong audit foundation may want to prepare for a highly technical and structured discussion in later stages of the process.