Guide-accurate framework recall to pass the screen, plus the facilitation and conflict scenarios that decide the offer.
Treat it as a process gap, not a grudge. Find out where and when decisions are made, get your team's constraints in front of the deciders before the meeting through short written proposals with a comment window both time zones can reach, and escalate a specific costly decision, not the people who made it.
Describe your use of AI tools by task, each with its check: reading cited lines, running code, confirming APIs against the docs for your version. Refuse any answer you cannot check cheaply or that is costly to get wrong, keep restricted data out of unapproved tools, and back it with one real catch.
A global capability centre is the parent company's own offshore unit, not a vendor, so a credible answer names what this centre owns, why building for one business suits you more than billable client projects or a startup's runway, and how you would handle decisions that are made at headquarters.
Choose a work sample with real decisions in it that you still understand line by line and are allowed to share. Be ready to admit which parts were other people's or a tool's, what is wrong with it, and what you would change, because the interviewer can open any file and ask why it is there.
Yes, once and briefly, with an assumption attached. In a hypothetical product exercise the scored move is what follows. Separate gaps that change the design from gaps that do not, choose assumptions that keep the problem hard, write them where both of you can see them, and say which parts of the design depend on each.
Give a deliberately short brief, keep a written fact sheet you answer from truthfully, and tell the candidate more detail exists. Score which design-changing facts they surface and whether the work changes, not how many questions they ask, and give every candidate the same answers and a midpoint disclosure chosen by one rule.