Pros: Interview prep materials were detailed and sent well ahead of each stage. The AI-assisted coding round was a genuinely interesting format. Cons: The process took roughly two and a half months end-to-end, across seven separate touchpoints: a recruiter screen, an informal chat with an engineering lead, two technical interviews, a three-competency final loop crammed into one almost-three-hour session with a single 15-minute break, an additional vibe check with someone more senior, and a couple of feedback calls. After the final loop, communication went quiet. I had to follow up twice over the following fortnight before getting any answer. After all that time investment, unpaid and unsupported by any interim feedback, the outcome was a generic "closer match" rejection. Advice to Management: Consider consolidating the number of discrete interview stages, or at minimum be upfront about the likely timeline so candidates can plan around it. If a decision date slips, a proactive heads-up beats making candidates chase twice for a status update.

Recruiter was very friendly. He was new at the company though and gave inaccurate information about what was to be asked. I got 2 strong hires in the final round (language fluency, values). For technical communications, it is unclear what the outcome was. I was presented with a very detailed document and unclear expectations. Feedback was very unfair and contradictory to what happened in the interview. I thought I just had an unfair interview, but since found out that the company rescinded offers and froze positions and kicked people out after probation. Something is looming at Canva.

The technical interview process felt poorly calibrated and inconsistently framed. The main issue was not that the questions were difficult, but that several rounds seemed to test a different skill set than what was communicated beforehand. In practice, it often felt unclear what the primary evaluation criteria actually were. Some rounds started as if they were focused coding exercises, but the expected discussion appeared to extend into broader design, scaling, or product-style considerations without that scope being made explicit early on. That made it difficult to judge how much time to spend on core implementation versus higher-level tradeoff discussion. The result was a process that felt noisy rather than rigorous.