My experience with RedSeer’s hiring process was deeply disappointing and professionally concerning. I was asked to complete an extensive assignment that took approximately 7 hours of work. After submission, I followed up regarding feedback and was informed that my assignment allegedly contained “well above 60% AI usage” along with “very little data.” As someone who takes editorial ethics and professional credibility seriously, I requested clarification and substantiation for this allegation. No evidence, report, screenshot, or AI detection breakdown was provided despite repeated requests. I independently ran the submitted assignment through multiple AI detection tools both before and after submission, and none reflected anything remotely close to the percentage claimed. There is a major difference between rejecting a candidate on editorial grounds and making unsubstantiated allegations regarding professional integrity. Companies are fully within their rights to reject assignments for tone, fit, or editorial direction. However, casually making severe AI misconduct claims without transparency or evidence is irresponsible and potentially harmful to a candidate’s reputation. The process felt emotionally exhausting, poorly handled, and lacking in professional accountability. I hope RedSeer develops clearer and more ethical internal protocols around AI-related evaluations in hiring processes going forward.