At the outset of the discussion, the hiring manager explained that the role was focused on iNHL — a direction I had not anticipated given the broader pipeline. The conversation was scheduled for forty‑five minutes but extended to a full hour, which I took as a positive indication, as I had prepared comprehensively for all relevant scenarios, including my prior pipeline experience and the specific needs of the programme. The only point of friction arose around tumour assessment. My experience with the Lugano criteria has been in the capacity of a Senior CRA rather than formally as a Clinical Scientist. Her reaction to this seemed somewhat disproportionate, particularly as the role itself requires interpretation by a board‑certified radiologist rather than the level of involvement suggested by the standard Clinical Scientist description. I explained that, as a physician, I am able to assimilate new material rapidly and have handled numerous therapeutic areas with ease. Her response — that being a physician might be a disadvantage because certain clinicians enjoy extended teaching — struck me as rather misaligned with the realities of oncology practice, where time is exceptionally limited and interactions with industry colleagues are typically concise and focused. It became clear to me during the exchange that her working style might present challenges were I to join the team; nonetheless, I reminded myself that this is a six‑month contract and approached the remainder of the conversation with professionalism. She mentioned she had additional interviews scheduled and that familiarity with the Lugano criteria would be a decisive factor for her, which I found an unusually narrow interpretation of the role’s requirements.