From the interviewer side, the final answer usually matters less than how you get there.

What I’ve found most useful is seeing how someone frames the problem, asks clarifying questions, and reacts when things aren’t obvious. Real work is messy, and interviews are often trying to simulate that.

A candidate who can explain their assumptions, adjust when new information comes in, and stay structured under uncertainty is usually a stronger signal than someone who rushes to a polished answer. The “right” answer without clear thinking is hard to trust.

Handling uncertainty calmly and communicating trade-offs tends to stand out more than perfection.

As a student, this is something I struggle with too. In interviews I usually go in thinking I need to reach the “right” answer as fast as possible, and that pressure sometimes makes my thinking messier.

From the interviews I’ve experienced and feedback I’ve received, it feels like interviewers care a lot about how you approach the problem. Explaining your assumptions, asking clarifying questions, and walking through your logic seems to matter more than being perfectly accurate from the start. Even when I didn’t fully finish a solution, clear communication helped the conversation stay positive. For me, learning to slow down, structure my thoughts, and be transparent about uncertainty has been more important than chasing a perfect answer.