From the 1st phase of this interview I got an impression that the interviewer (an architect) likes people who do their part but do not give critical feedback about technical decisions made by him. This was the first red flag. It was also made clear that you should not be trying to be ambitious and to become anything more later (like a tech lead or an architect). This was a 2nd red flag. Both of these red flags made this interview difficult already as most companies want you to try to improve things and be ambitious (which is often a direct motivator for self improvement). The final issue was the technical test to be done at home. Test description said this test should take not more than an hour, which usually means that you have to make some quick assumptions about things which are vaguely explained and deliver something working asap. Then you count on being able to later explain your assumptions and discuss what you would do with different set of assumptions or more time given. Instead they have skipped the second part of the technical test and did not let me explain any of it. This was very upsetting. Solution to a badly written test descriptions can only be done correctly by assuming various things and writing multiple solutions or basically spending much more time on thinking and writing code than 1h which was given for the test. My conclusion was that the interviewer did not respect my time and did not expect me to keep to 1h time given for the test (and believe that you can easily spend a day writing such solutions if you don’t respect time boundaries). If he respected my time then this phase would have obligatory second part where we would be discussing code which I have written. Overall, the peculiarities of the phase one and unfairness of the phase two made the whole experience negative and company less appealing.