Went through interviews with a hiring manager and a team member, followed by an onsite case study presentation to additional team members. The recruiter was professional, communicative, and kept me informed throughout the process, which I appreciated. After the onsite, I was told my presentation received very positive feedback and that the team needed a couple of weeks to complete interviews with other candidates already in process. The timeline was ultimately extended over several weeks, which made it difficult to maintain momentum and clarity on next steps. During the onsite, it was shared that the case study was based on a real business scenario tied to an active campaign. While that context can be helpful, clearer communication in the case study instructions would ensure candidates are evaluated on their approach rather than deliverables that resemble production-ready recommendations. The final feedback, shared when I was informed I would not be moving forward, contradicted the earlier positive feedback I had received. Persona and segment personalization was cited as a gap, despite being included in my case study presentation and discussed in detail during the presentation. This was not raised during or immediately after the onsite at all in the feedback, when it could have been clarified. It also appeared that the expectation for the case study leaned toward a more fully developed GTM plan rather than a high-level strategic framework, which differed from the written instructions. In addition, while the role was positioned as an individual contributor, the scope of the case study and evaluation criteria felt closer to a more senior, strategy-oriented expectation and required a significant time investment. Overall, stronger alignment across stakeholders on role scope, evaluation criteria, and timelines would improve the candidate experience.