This is for a data scientist position in a fraud/risk team. The recruiter is vey professional and helpful throughout the entire process. The interview process with the HM creates negative, unprofessional experience. The company/HR department might want to have some quality control and/or training for their interviewers. 1. Among all my interviews with the team, the interviewers were late for the meetings from 5-10 minutes every time. 2. I passed the Python coding round (at least the interviewer told me so in the interview: he told me no need to finish the rest 2 or 3 questions so we started to chat about the team and projects). Later, they told me I failed at the Python round after another round of case interview. 3. The use case round is "supposed to" lasting 1 hour: the HM first scheduled a 1-hour session and then shorten it to a 30-min one, which is OK. However, he was 5-10 mins late again for the meeting and told me he couldn't find the case in his computer... Many times I didn't quite get what he was asking/looking for. Very disorganized and underprepared case interview experience compared to my previous experiences with other companies. 4. The feedback is lack of depth in Python and the use case result is subpar. If so, why did you move me to the use case round after the Python one and had told me coding round went well? And isn't it essential that an interviewer has a case available in a case study interview?