I’m writing this to help future candidates set expectations and avoid investing significant time without clear evaluation criteria. The interview process was long and time-intensive, including a multi-day take-home assessment and live exercises. Communication from recruiting was polite, but the process required a substantial time investment without a clear rubric or consistent standards. The final decision feedback did not meaningfully reference the deliverables or the live exercise outputs. The primary critique was that answers were “not deep enough,” despite the process itself being vague about what level of depth was expected. That disconnect makes it difficult to understand how performance is assessed and creates unnecessary waste of candidate time, especially for experienced candidates. Recommendation: publish a clear rubric up front, align interviewers on what “good” looks like, and move any multi-day take-home to the end of the loop after leveling and role fit are confirmed. As it stands, the process is likely to turn off strong candidates.