The process followed a fairly standard structure: you apply, complete cognitive and personality assessments, and are then invited to an initial interview covering typical background, motivation, and role-related questions. While this part of the process was smooth and well-organized, it did not significantly differentiate itself from other companies’ recruitment processes in terms of depth or insight. I had a positive experience throughout most of the process and appreciated the time and effort put into the interviews. The conversations were engaging, and I got a strong impression of an ambitious and driven company culture, which I found very appealing. However, the experience fell short towards the end of the process. After being told that feedback would be provided, I was hoping for more concrete and actionable insights following the final decision. The reasoning I received felt somewhat general, and when I followed up to better understand the decision, I did not receive a response. Additionally, I found there to be a mismatch between how the role was initially described and the reasoning provided in the rejection. The position was presented as dynamic with opportunities for growth and increased responsibility over time, which was a key factor in my interest. The final feedback, however, suggested that the role was more limited in scope. This inconsistency made the decision harder to fully understand from a candidate perspective. For candidates who invest significant time and energy into a process, transparent and specific feedback, as well as alignment between role expectations and evaluation criteria, is extremely valuable. Improving this part of the candidate experience would make a meaningful difference.