Negative experience primarily due to the hiring process. Candidates are required to invest significant time completing an exercise before any initial conversation, yet the level of review effort did not appear proportional. This created a sense of imbalance in time investment. The process began directly with a take-home assignment (a TDD review in this case), without an introductory or alignment discussion. After submission, a follow-up interview was scheduled. A few observations that may help future candidates: First, it became evident during the interview that the written submission had not been fully reviewed. This undermines the purpose of a detailed exercise and suggests that candidates should expect to present their work live regardless of the effort put into the written review. Second, expectations for the assignment were not clearly aligned. Candidates may approach the task from an engineering management perspective—focusing on evaluating reasoning, providing structured feedback, and suggesting improvements without prescribing a single solution. However, the interview emphasized arriving at a specific solution, shifting the discussion away from review quality and toward real-time problem solving. The rejection feedback was generic but quick, with no clear indication of which areas did not meet expectations. During the interview, there were signs of misalignment in expectations and approach, which made the outcome less surprising. As the discussion progressed, the conversation became increasingly focused on a specific solution path, highlighting a lack of alignment on how the exercise was being evaluated. This resulted in reduced engagement toward the later part of the discussion, as it no longer reflected the initially understood scope of the role. Overall, candidates may benefit from: - Clarifying how the assignment will be evaluated (solution-focused vs. review-focused). - Preparing to present a concrete solution, even if the prompt appears open-ended.