Yeah. There's a reason why the standing order for the public is "don't ever talk to the police without your lawyer in the room". Doubt or confusion about past events is often perceived as an attempt to fabricate. Add in the ability for the interviewer to feed false facts to you in an attempt to question your story, and it's tough to pass the truth as the truth.

It doesn't matter if you're actually innocent, what matters is whether they can cast doubt on your innocence. Do you think you could repeat a simple story that just happened to you recently in multiple different chronological and detail configurations/contexts without introducing some inconsistencies?

Only if you're in a hurry! The interviewer can patiently wait for the subject to become bored. Formal interviews in intimidating settings (like panel interviews for jobs) are often scheduled to be much longer than necessary just on the expectation that the first half will be nervous ice-breaking and the real insights are after everyone loosens up and is capable of acting naturally.

That's probably half of "in vino veritas": drinking is an excuse to spend a few extra hours with nothing to do but chat.

I think the point of asking about senses is that memories of feelings are more consistent than memories of detail. And if it's being done properly, the person's answers are being benchmarked against their other answers. If you're struggling to remember a particular day at all then it's not necessarily held against you, but if your recollections of what was said and done at a particular event are hazy after you've calmly explained that you know you were there until at least 8pm because you got the 8:14 train home then...

Only if this were considered conclusive (which it isn't) and if it weren't attempted first with an honest recounting of an actual memory (which they do).

I assume the true experience is done first to give a basis for comparison, since this is based on the idea that people paint pictures of their memories less reliably when they're fabricating them on the spot.

Having poorer recall actually might bias the results more in favor of a lie, if the interviewer doesn't reject the method as unsuitable or inconclusive first.