Design systems and accessible enterprise UI.
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.
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.
Separate the leverage from the merit: the renewal makes the request urgent, it does not make it valuable. Work out the real problem underneath the requested solution, test whether it generalises to other accounts, and price the full cost including permanent maintenance rather than the build estimate. Then choose deliberately between roadmap, configuration, services and no.
Separate what the design costs users from what you personally dislike, then reconstruct the constraint that produced it: a business model, an organisational boundary, a regulatory rule or a migration nobody can finish. Any change you propose has to survive that constraint or it is not a proposal.