There is still a realistic chance. Interview performance is not graded by counting every visible mistake; interviewers care about the quality of the overall problem-solving process and how you respond when something goes wrong.

A missed branch can be recoverable if you incorporate the prompt well. A math error can be recoverable if you catch or correct it. A hint on an exhibit is not automatically disqualifying if the rest of the interpretation is strong.

What matters more is whether the problems formed a consistent pattern across both interviews. If both interviewers saw weak structuring, weak math, and weak synthesis, that is more concerning than three isolated moments.

Do not send a defensive follow-up or try to explain the mistakes. Wait for the result. In the meantime, document what happened so the experience becomes useful regardless of the outcome.

I passed R1 after a math mistake + one prompt. Candidate perception is not the same as interviewer score.

The recovery matters a ton. If they give a hint and you use it well, that is different from needing five hints.

I thought mine was a disaster and got the next-round email the next morning.

Would you describe the second case as good overall? One stronger interview can change the picture.

Move on mentally for your sanity, but don't assume rejection.