I had a frustrating and disappointing experience with Carlsmed’s interview process. After several interview rounds, I was asked to complete a take-home assignment that was extremely time-consuming and far beyond what I would consider reasonable for an interview. It required substantial research and senior-level analysis and was requested on a compressed timeline over Thanksgiving week. I spent multiple days working on it. I was then invited to present the work and spent nearly two hours walking through my analysis and answering detailed questions. Throughout the process, the team emphasized urgency and gave the impression they were actively hiring. After the presentation, communication stopped. Despite multiple follow-ups, I eventually received a generic message stating that the role had been closed and that no hire would be made—without any meaningful explanation or feedback, despite the significant unpaid work involved. Given the scope of the assignment and the timing, the process felt like it took advantage of the fact that many experienced candidates are actively searching for similar roles and willing to invest extra effort to stay competitive. Whether intentional or not, the lack of transparency made the experience feel one-sided and unfair. While I understand that priorities can change, asking candidates to contribute work that closely resembles real project output deserves clearer expectations, better communication, and respect for candidates’ time. Advice to Management: Be transparent about hiring intent, reduce the scope of interview assignments, and avoid requesting work that resembles deliverables unless you are prepared to follow through or compensate candidates appropriately.