To be clear: the issue of what your current role entails is different from the layoff situation. They need not be answered in the same question. But as others have stated, being clear about the layoff round (which came to your knowledge after you applied to them in any case) is not inherently negative and makes things clearer.

Agreed. It is not OP's fault, it is management's problem to fix (at the latest when pointed out by OP). competitive nature of SE: I've seen them; my current team has a very mutually supportive culture (one screws up, all help to fix, no git blame). Scrum Master is non-technical & sometimes leaves us to self-manage, we offload non-tech chores to him. Though team members are quite average, we have good productivity and a successful project launch (high-profile multinational) - probably key goals for good managers (->foster the right culture!) We are now even asked to bail out other projects.

Valuable answer because it shows that the exchange has 2 sides, the employer also wants to get something out of it. OP would do well to approach the interview not as a hurdle to be passed with memorized stock answers from the internet, but as a discussion on how both parties will gain (sufficiently) when a contract is made - and thus sell their offer appropriately.

But be careful of unintended consequences: (1) the manager may not like to potentially relocate (living arrangements) every 2-3 years (so negotiate); (2) people moving out of "his" branch to other branches may unintentionally/undeservedly get stigmatized as "slackers" as a counterpoint to the "want to work hard and make a quick career" message. But in general the "you are very good at ... so we want you to do more of it" message is better than "can you lay off of ...?".

Came here to say the same :-) Since OP seems to have a good relationship with former boss, he could approach it with boss along the line of: "I think I have given you everything you need to go forward, I am still emotionally invested to see this product and your company succeed, but due to personal circumstances I'll need to charge for consultancy if I am still needed in future." Needless to say, it needs to be market-related. If you love someone set them free ... and all that.

I work for the subsidiary of a huge German company (abroad). The (awful) time logging tool basically requires comments, either at (remote) clock-in or clock-out (so not when physically swiping a card at the office....) Else the manager gets flagged, and e-mails you to fix it. I basically put a list of meetings and tickets in there, which could be 1 item, in addition to "daily standup meeting", on most days (and never had a complaint). I doubt the manager even knows the significance in most cases. But yeah, agree with all of the above: pretty hard to say, without input from your manager.

@AndrasDeak sure, I can see that for someone that is diagnosed with it or otherwise has much to do with the subject, it would seem that "on the spectrum" is the most used terminology. I see the official term "Autism Spectrum Disorder" or ASD is most often used (there are others). I stand corrected regarding using ADHD. Nevertheless, there are numerous other "spectrum" conditions besides Autism, so I still think it is more helpful to be specific.

@AndrasDeak I'm in fact not sure, so please use whatever is appropriate. I just feel that using "on the spectrum" without specifying which spectrum that is, tends towards slang-y language, which may be puzzling for some people not familiar with it. It is supposed to be medically accepted diagnosis after all.

yes of course :-)

Being "on the [ADHD] spectrum" is certainly a plausible possibility, as those people often struggle with "unwritten rules" of social interactions and the workplace/reading between the lines that may be "obvious" to others. May be worthwhile to be explicit about expectations, even if not "on the spectrum" - I sometimes think more and more people these days grow up not well socialized through no fault of their own.