I had to do the infamous panel interview at WashU recently, which involved 10 professors in the same Zoom room listening to you do this (but for 20 minutes instead of 10).
The way I handled it was by giving an abbreviated summary of my work: I started with the motivation, then moved into the hypothesis we were trying to test (“I hypothesized that X, and to test this hypothesis I designed and conducted experiments A, B and C…”). I didn’t go into gory details here, only providing as much information as necessary for the committee to understand the experiment’s purpose and how it contributes to the big idea. Following this, I talked about the results and implication. I was interrupted throughout to clarify or discuss my methods and any alternatives I could have pursued.
My best suggestion would be to know your science inside and out to handle these exploratory questions and so you can craft a concise but powerful talk. Don’t worry if someone juts in with a question; I don’t think they are interested in grilling or stress-testing you. Good luck!