May you use AI in this interview round?
Read the instructions for the exact stage. Do not transfer permission between employers.
The question
Patchwell is a fictional team that builds scheduling software. This is an authored practice case. You are preparing for two employers. The packets below are supplied instructions for fictional practice rounds; the company pages link the real published policies separately.
Use an AI coding assistant. Be ready to show prompts, explain the code, and fix its failures.
Complete the live coding task independently. No AI unless the interviewer gives permission.
You used an AI assistant yesterday to practice tracing unfamiliar code.
“How do you prepare and work in each round? What would you do if the recruiter and interviewer give different instructions?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Apply the stage-specific rule
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Follow each round’s written instructions
The strong move. The packets state different rules.
Use AI in both because engineers use it at work
Tempting, but it misses something. Workplace practice does not override interview instructions.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Round A asks for AI-assisted work; Round B asks for independent work. Yesterday’s practice does not authorize live assistance in Round B. I would confirm the exact tools allowed before starting.”
Why it works: Permission depends on the current round, not on the existence of AI at work.
Step 2: Prepare to explain A
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Hide prompts and show only the final patch
Tempting, but it misses something. That removes evidence the invitation asks for.
Show assistance and explain decisions
The strong move. It follows the stated assessment format.
See how a strong candidate says it
“For A I would practice short prompts, inspect each change, and keep a clear record of assistance. I would be ready to trace a failing input without asking the model to explain it for me.”
Why it works: The candidate remains responsible for the solution.
Step 3: Keep B independent
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Reason directly and ask the interviewer questions
The strong move. It respects the stated boundary.
Read a concealed generated answer
Tempting, but it misses something. That contradicts the live-round rule.
See how a strong candidate says it
“For B I would close assistant tools and explain my own reasoning aloud. If I get stuck, I would ask the interviewer a clarifying question or state the next test I would run.”
Why it works: Independent work can still include normal communication.
Step 4: Resolve conflicting instructions
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Assume a previous employer’s policy applies
Tempting, but it misses something. Different employers and stages use different formats.
Ask before using the disputed tool
The strong move. It makes permission explicit.
See how a strong candidate says it
“If the recruiter’s note and interviewer disagree, I would pause and ask which rule governs this round, then follow the clarified instruction. I would not silently choose the more permissive message.”
Why it works: A short clarification prevents a format mismatch.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Use the rule for the exact employer, stage, and invitation.
- Because
- AI-assisted and independent formats both exist in the primary sources.
- What would change it
- Explicit permission from the interviewer would change the tool boundary for that round.
Common traps
- Treating permission as employer-wide or permanent.
- Confusing AI preparation with live AI assistance.
Check your answer
- Did you separate the two round formats?
- Did you keep assistance transparent where permitted?
- Did you preserve independent work where required?
- Did you ask to resolve conflicting instructions before acting?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026