Very bad and sad experience with recruiter, technical people was wonderful. In summary I shared to recruiter that I had another offer that was about to expire in a couple of days, Thoughtworks accelerated the last two interviews which was great. I asked for feedback, recruiter told me that all was good, even ask for my id number to move into the offer letter part. On the very date when my other offer was going to expire, the recruiter of thoughtworks assured me that she the offer was going to be approved in a matter of minutes, so my mistake was to believe it and I declined the other offer. After this episode the offer never came, every day I had to ask about the offer to recruiter, which never was real or in words of recruiter had not the final approval. Final interview was innecesarily delayed for 4 days. I was told that I had technical gaps and that we could be back in the process in a couple of months. I was offered a feedback e-mail with the things I had to learn to fill the gaps I had. This e-mail was a lie too, never came up. Learned Lesson: never believe in recruiters if the offer is not formalized by e-mail. The process was: 1. Recruiter Interview 2. Coding Activity 3. Technical Interview 4. Culture Conversation. 5. LeaderShip interview. 5.5 hours in total, hundred of questions. Good experience in general, some questions about social matters, diversity and inclusion.

Frustrating and inconsistent interview process (code pairing felt like a trap This was honestly one of the more frustrating interview experiences I have had for a senior/lead role. The process included a code pairing session, which was presented as collaborative. In reality, it felt highly directive and inconsistent. I followed the interviewer’s instructions during the exercise and explicitly called out technical trade-offs while doing so. Despite that, the feedback later claimed I had “overlooked” those exact trade-offs. That’s simply not true. So the situation becomes: * follow the interviewer → get penalized * don’t follow → probably get penalized for not being collaborative There’s no clear or fair evaluation path there. Another red flag: I was initially told during interview that two additional interviewers would join, but then midway it changed to them being “unavailable.” For a company that emphasizes professionalism, that felt disorganized and poorly coordinated. Also surprising for a senior-level interview , a noticeable amount of time was spent checking whether I had previously coded something using basic commands like git diff. That’s not a meaningful signal for a Lead role and felt like a poor use of interview time. If they are doubting the candidate using poor tactic like this, the company should consider switching strategy to test the candidate rather than giving problem upfront. What makes this worse is the follow-up. When these inconsistencies were raised, the response from recruit team didn’t actually address them. Instead, it was reframed as “testing adaptability” and “responding to guidance,” without explaining how that aligns with feedback that contradicts what was explicitly discussed during the session. On paper, the feedback listed several strong positives, which makes the final decision even harder to reconcile. It feels like the outcome was decided first, and the reasoning was fitted afterward. Overall, the people were polite, but the process itself felt inconsistent, poorly aligned, and not reflective of what actually happened in the interview.