1st Round: Elimination Round (Indian Interviewer)
Problem 1: Given a 2D grid with obstacles, find a path from a source to a destination.
Problem 2: A dynamic programming problem involving segment-based operations (similar to Codeforces 448C).
Outcome:
I fully implemented the first problem in 30 minutes using an optimal approach. For the second problem, I only managed a naive solution before time ran out. The interviewer seemed satisfied overall.

✅ Verdict: Positive

2nd Round: 1st Onsite (Indian Interviewer)
Problem 1: Implement a pattern-matching system for IP addresses. Some patterns allow wildcards (e.g., 192.168.1.*), and the task was to check if a given query matched any pattern.
Example input: [ "192.124.168.*", "192.124.64.*", "192.12.16.8", "192.124.6.1"]
Query: "192.124.168.1" → Output: True
Query: "192.124.16.8" → Output: False
Follow-up: Extend the solution to handle multiple lists of patterns and process two IPs together.
Outcome:
I solved the first problem in 30 minutes and proposed multiple approaches. The interviewer liked my Trie-based solution and asked me to optimize it further. In the follow-up, I discussed modifications to the Trie for sequential lookups, which the interviewer appreciated.

✅ Verdict: Positive

3rd Round: 2nd Onsite (Indian Interviewer)
Problem: A dependency problem where network routers must be hit in order of their dependencies. The question was hidden behind a lot of irrelevant context involving multiple POJOs
Outcome:
I quickly identified the problem’s core concept (topological sorting) and implemented a solution. While coding, I spotted a cycle detection edge case, which the interviewer appreciated.
✅ Verdict: Positive

4th Round: 3rd Onsite (Indian Interviewer)
Problem: Given a text file and a list of banned words, replace all banned words with "REDACTED".
Outcome:
I initially suggested a simple iteration approach, but the interviewer raised scalability concerns. I then proposed reading the file in chunks for large-scale processing. Since I wasn’t familiar with file-handling methods at the time, I explained my logic with pseudo-code instead of a full implementation.
Interviewer seemed unsatisfied, but the verdict remained positive.

5th Round: Googliness & Leadership (UK Interviewer)
This was a behavioral round with 5 rapid-fire questions. I followed the STAR framework and focused on actions & results. The interviewer shared his own experiences, which reassured me that my responses resonated well.

✅ Verdict: Cleared

Key Takeaways:

• Google allows a mock interview before the elimination round—I took one, and it helped me understand evaluation criteria.
• Fast typing helps in high-pressure situations—I practiced problem-solving under time constraints.
• LeetCode’s discussion section helped identify patterns in recent questions.
• Modular code and clear problem solving is given more importance.

Glad to give back the community. Hope this helps you guys!