Pros
Nothing except you have absolutely noting to do. the real work is glorified documentation.
Cons
Misleading job postings. Scam interviews. The work offered is absolutely different then publicised in postings and promised in interviews. Reverse engineering test cases and requirements from already-completed code, that's a big red flag. It violates core principles of safety-critical development, which should be: Requirements → Design → Implementation → Test Not code-first → “make it look compliant” later For engineers, it’s demotivating because: You’re not designing or solving real problems You're often just writing documentation to tick audit boxes Creating the illusion of standards compliance for auditors for clients (e.g. ESA, aviation firms), while: Cutting corners in actual design/architecture phases Delivering final artifacts after the fact to simulate due process This is particularly problematic in industries where safety and correctness actually matter (aerospace, automotive, etc.). Problem Impact on You Reverse-engineered requirements You’re not designing—you’re documenting Waterfall overload: No flexibility or learning loops Fake traceability: Adds no value, just compliance “fluff” Burnout from stress + lack of impact: You feel like a scribe, not an engineer So while the company sells itself as delivering mission-critical systems, what is being done there is the opposite: Low agency, high bureaucracy No real influence on the architecture "Get it done and package it nicely" mindset That’s not what top engineers sign up for when they hear “aerospace/defense projects” or “high-integrity software.” On top of that micro-management and toxic work culture. Primary School like atmosphere created by helicopter managers. seems like fake reviews are manufectured on Glassdoor
