I applied and was invited to a screening interview the following day. The interviewer was friendly, the questions were standard, and overall, there were no major concerns—aside from one comment suggesting the role required comfort with unclear instructions, which raised some alignment issues. The next stage involved a personality test. While it didn't take too much time to complete, it felt unnecessary and like an outdated method for assessing candidates. Following that, I was asked to prepare a “short” task: a 15‑minute presentation outlining marketing tactics to attract attendees to one of their upcoming events. I generally do not favour take‑home interview tasks, and I find those that resemble unpaid work to be particularly problematic. In this case, the assignment appeared to be a real business challenge they were facing, with the (assumed) expectation that candidates would provide free insights for use in future campaigns. I explained politely that, due to my current workload, I could not dedicate hours to an unpaid project and offered instead to share links to past campaigns I had successfully managed. The interviewer responded that candidates who do not complete the task cannot be considered, and my application was closed. This was not unexpected, but worth noting that the presentation was only one of several stages, with at least three more rounds planned, including meetings with SCI’s leadership team. Overall, the candidate experience was poor. The process appeared designed to filter out individuals who set boundaries or question practices, rather than valuing assertiveness and professional judgment. Based on this experience, I would advise caution when considering employment here, and I think it is a good thing that things did not work out for me.