I recently went through Factorial’s interview process and appreciated the recruiter’s communication and professionalism. However, I felt that too much weight was placed on the live challenge as a deciding factor, especially in how the results of this step were interpreted. A live challenge only reflects how a candidate responds in that specific moment, and this can be influenced by their understanding of what the interviewers want to see. For instance, if someone talks about solutions, they might be judged as lacking the ability to think strategically or frame opportunities. In reality, this might simply show a difference in expectations rather than any real gap in skills. It’s entirely possible for someone to excel at both identifying opportunities and designing solutions, yet putting too much emphasis on a single exercise risks overlooking strong candidates. There were also some inconsistencies in the process. In an earlier interview, I was told the role required creative ideas for solutions, but the feedback I received after the live challenge suggested that discussing solutions was seen as a weakness. This made it unclear what was actually being evaluated. Another issue was the miscommunication about preparation. I was specifically told not to prepare anything for the live challenge, but during the session, I was asked if I had any visuals to present. While this wasn’t a major problem, it did create some unnecessary confusion. Live challenges can certainly add value to the process, but they shouldn’t overshadow a more comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s abilities and experience. I hope Factorial considers refining how they approach and interpret this step to make their process more effective.