Was asked to complete a one-way video "screening" interview for a senior leadership role, which is already a concern at that level. The submission included nine questions with a 48-hour turnaround. I initially moved forward, assuming they would focus on high-level leadership and strategy. The first question, however, was something to the effect of how I would identify 50 target accounts for an ABM strategy with no prior brand context, while explicitly factoring in an understanding of what the company does. The second asked for specific markers and disqualifiers to justify churning a high-profile logo. These go beyond assessing strategic thinking and into detailed, execution-level IP that many in the industry would consider paid consulting work, not a fair “screening” prompt for candidates. At that point, I stopped the process and withdrew my candidacy. I’m not comfortable providing highly tactical, directly applicable strategy in a one-directional screening format with no opportunity for dialogue, clarification, or relationship-building. The recruiter confirmed this step is required for all candidates. While consistency in process is understandable, the combination of a one-way video, time pressure, and deeply tactical questions tied to the company’s real-world go-to-market and churn criteria raises serious concerns. Whether intentional or not, this structure strongly risks coming across as crowdsourcing strategic thinking from candidates. I would strongly encourage the company to reevaluate both the format and the depth of detail requested in early-stage interviews for senior roles. Many experienced leaders will see these kinds of questions as a red flag and opt out rather than give away their playbooks in a screening exercise.