Hah, it is, in hindsight, and I agree (and bleh, last thing I want to sound like is AI!). But I think my point is more - if it had been framed as something like "defending your thesis/dissertation", seeing if your choices stand up to scrutiny, versus the somewhat snooty down-the-nose feeling of "We are judging you. Speak now." then it is better - and real: your architecture and code decisions should stand up to review/critique, after all.
Framing something as "defending" against "critique" creates an interaction that is immediately adversarial, which is not so far distant from judging down-the-nose, IMO. They are words of combat and criticism, and I think we get better outcomes when we find ways to ask a candidate to "discuss strengths and compromises" without that. I don't want any of my candidates to feel like they are on defense against me in a scenario where they know that there is a catastrophic power imbalance and I am able to use literally any reason I want to kick them to the street. People don't think well in that kind of situation.
> last thing I want to sound like is AI!
My suggestion of it signaling AI was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Humans have been writing inexpertly and injecting cliched fluff since the invention of writing. Communicating with precision is one of the most difficult things that any of us ever do.
