Stunted Procedure, not Growth Protocol. Early conversations were pleasant, but the process ended in a ghosting that's hard to square with the seniority of the people involved. The role was reposted using my exact wording from our conversations, along with specific ideas I'd shared for carrying it out. Operational plans and frameworks you offer freely here can end up in a revised job description rather than an offer. AI transcription was used in meetings without notice or consent. I was never asked and wouldn't have agreed. During one of those recorded sessions, a strategic advisor asked whether I had children, and whether they were "special, or had special needs," and made a point of saying "some people do." For the record, I don't have kids. That exchange sits in the transcript they took without permission. That is real legal exposure on multiple fronts coming from someone at that level. Follow-ups were met with silence, delayed non-answers, or corporate doublespeak that quietly shifted the burden of communication onto me (bizarre, given that they own the process). Vision for the role was contradictory too. The CEO described a strategic partner, while an advisor described receptionist work. The role has been open since February, posted in short bursts and pulled repeatedly. My read is that they don't know what they want and are collecting information from candidates across multiple pools to structure the role. What's evident is a leadership team that wastes time, struggles to delegate, decide and assume responsibility, producing bottlenecks, mixed signals, and poor, disorganized optics. For context, I've worked in executive offices at Fortune 100 companies and big tech, and this bizarre experience left a bad taste. The whole thing felt less like an interview than an unpaid strategy consultation. I came in rooting for the company, hoping to see this team succeed, and left with neither faith in leadership nor confidence in their direction. Stagnation Code.