The process spanned nearly two months and began with a series of assessments: an IQ test, a marketing aptitude quiz (which leaned more academic than applied), and a personality profile. This was followed by a “Real Work Challenge” that asked candidates to develop a detailed go-to-market strategy for a new vertical, despite limited visibility into the company’s existing structure or internal context. While framed as a light exercise, producing something meaningful took several hours and bled into personal time. After submitting the plan, I was scheduled for two interviews. The first, with the CEO, was a positive conversation centered on cultural alignment. The second was far less constructive. The interviewer seemed distracted and disengaged, offering zero questions and minimal interaction. After investing significant time into the process, this lack of engagement was disheartening. I left the conversation unsure whether I’d even accept the role if offered. A rejection email arrived a few weeks later, well beyond the communicated timeline. While I wasn’t surprised or disappointed by the outcome, I’d advise future applicants to proceed with eyes open. There are elements of this process that may feel more extractive than evaluative.