The initial stages of the process were well-structured, with some engaging and thoughtful conversations with members of the leadership team. These behavioral interviews provided a good opportunity to explore alignment with the company and role, which I appreciated. However, the subsequent take-home assignment and panel review process introduced significant challenges that impacted the overall candidate experience. Take-Home Assignment The assignment was extensive, requiring a detailed project plan and testing strategy for a hypothetical company launch with minimal context provided. This necessitated making numerous assumptions, which was both time-intensive and ambiguous. The 72-hour deadline, falling over a weekend, added unnecessary pressure without flexibility. There was no opportunity to present the deliverables with proper context, limiting the chance to clarify assumptions or set the stage for meaningful discussions. Panel Review Process Very little review of the submitted materials appeared to have been conducted prior to the interview. Some panelists reviewed the documents only 45 minutes before the session, which became evident in the discussion. Questions during the panel often extended beyond the stated assignment scope. While valuable topics, these questions deviated from the defined focus of the assignment and the limited context provided to the candidate. The panel treated the session more like an executive review, delivering blunt, real-time feedback on portions of the deliverables without allowing the candidate time to present their approach or explain decisions. This created an unnatural and high-pressure environment, contrasting with how such discussions would typically occur in a collaborative workplace setting, where team support and internal insights are available. General Issues The abrupt departure of a panelist from the call without explanation further detracted from the professional tone of the interview. The overall process left the impression that the time and effort invested in the take-home assignment were not valued, as the materials were not thoroughly reviewed or discussed. Conclusion While this process clearly demonstrated a mismatch in expectations between both parties, the open-ended nature of the assignment, coupled with the lack of preparation and collaborative discussion during the panel, created an uncomfortable environment. For future candidates, refining the assignment’s scope, allowing a presentation period to set context, and ensuring panel alignment on evaluation criteria would help foster a more productive and respectful experience.