I originally interviewed with InTapp for a DevOps (CICD) role. The initial interview stage consisted of a 1:1 meeting with one of their CICD / DevOps engineers based out in Ukraine, this was a really positive interview as the interviewer really explained the role, project, expectations, tooling etc so well and the conversation was technical, focusing on what I had worked on, how I would fit in the team, how the structure of things worked in InTapp and what kind of technological challenges their team faced. The end result of the interview was positive, and I was to be progressed within recruitment, however the role I had applied to had been filled during this time of waiting. It was not made clear whether it was due to someone else being further in the recruitment process, someone they felt was better fit or what, it was then moved to a Kubernetes specific interview as they had a DevOps (Kubernetes) Engineer role, I decided to move forward without asking too many questions as they had possibly decided on someone else for CICD but still wanted to see if I was a fit for K8s. Also I enjoyed the talks I had so far with InTapp as well as hearing about the company and role, it felt a good fit. There was also a personality interview which was interesting, and although brief I thought it was a refreshing way to gain insight into future employees and thought more companies should do this. After having a semi-casual, technical intro/role suitability chat for Kubernetes, they replied back to me saying I had suitable experience with enterprise tooling and not enough adequate experience with how their specific environment/deployment of K8s was - which seemed not only a bizarre way to end the interview process, but quite frankly a bit of a cop out. After having worked on so many projects with different environments using Kubernetes, and fundamentally recognising that it is core knowledge that is important and basically so much is learnt on the job within the stack you are using at the time, it seemed a very strange way to end the interviews. Either a candidate is capable of the role you are interviewing them for, or they are not. It is really quite simple, so when recruitment says "you don't have experience in X" what they really mean is "we should have explicitly told you that we needed X skills and Y experience before we put you in an interview process for this role" After they had told me no for 2 roles they had previously said I was a good fit for, they then said we would message again if something came up in a pretty dismissive way. This infers I would want to be put through yet another round of interviewing with them only to have my time wasted again. I would rather not.