My background was an impeccable fit for the role, and writing is my strongest skill, so I did decently well in the process. What really stood out was how overengineered and adversarial the experience felt. Never mind the upfront case and the lack of feedback, I signed up for that. The real issue is the mindset behind the process: Clipboard confuses rigor with friction! Hidden text to catch LLM use says a lot, it is more gotcha than judgment and if LLM submissions are so obvious, they shouldn't need such tricks. Instructions like “one and only one recommended solution” and warnings that LLM-generated submissions are “very obvious” are not signs of a confident hiring process. They clearly do not know how to identify strong candidates without forcing them through some narrow and rigid template. The reading materials were self-serious, rigid, and condescending. The overall process felt like a search for a very specific type of person who can mirror and group-think. Not a very entrepreneurial culture. Also worth noting: they recently hired a CFO from Oaktree. That is a restructuring private equity shop. That is not exactly a reassuring signal if you are thinking about stability or how they plan to run the place! Overall good interview practice.