The recruitment process was disappointing. Initially, I believed I was interviewing for a role directly with a British company, but later learned it was managed through an outsourcing firm. That in itself wasn’t a deal-breaker - I assumed it may have been a misunderstanding. What left me confused was the feedback. After a brief, friendly 30-minute interview with the recruiter, I was told I wasn't moving forward. When I asked for details, I was told my soft skills were “pretty good,” but that my “temperament” didn’t align with the client’s expectations. This felt vague and somewhat contradictory. It's unclear how such a judgment could be made based on a single conversation, especially without me ever speaking to the client directly. Surprisingly, a couple of months later I was contacted again by the same company regarding a different opportunity—with the same client. During that interview, I was explicitly told there was no such thing as a "temperament requirement" from the client. If temperament was truly critical to the role, it should have been mentioned in the job description. And if it wasn’t actually a factor, then the explanation I received earlier raises even more questions about how the decision was actually made.