I interviewed with Macquarie BFS over approximately two months. The process included multiple technical rounds, coding assessments, system design, psychometric/behavioural assessments, and team interviews. Most interviewers were professional, and the technical discussions were relevant. After receiving positive feedback, I was told I may be a better fit for another team. However, the subsequent team-match interview felt like a completely new technical round. The new interviewers did not appear to have full context on the previous rounds I had completed, and the format included trivia-style technical questions followed by an unexpected coding/design exercise. My main feedback is that the process would benefit from clearer communication around team-match expectations. If a team-match round can include coding or technical assessment, candidates should be told upfront, especially after already completing several rounds over a long period. Overall, the people were courteous, but the process felt prolonged and misaligned between teams. Candidates should ask early how many rounds are expected, whether team matching may restart technical evaluation, and what each interview will involve. I wrote to HR and withdrew from the process because, after multiple rounds over two months, the final team-match stage did not feel clearly communicated or fair to me.