Flawed interview process for an otherwise prominent growth "startup". I don't usually write reviews but felt compelled after going through this process. Was only asked behavioral questions. Felt like interviews went well, somewhat conversational given how prescriptive it felt, and never got a sense I "missed the mark". It was clear the interviewers were following some type of prescribed process and had to fill out a form. Now I've worked in professional services / consulting firms for nearly a decade across both top tier strategy and tech firms and have also recruited countless talent for them. I can only imagine Deployment Strategist role to be nearly identical to other prof services roles. So it was to my surprise when I did not advance forward and was not given any reasoning why. Sadly I'm not alone here as can be seen from many other reviewers here who suffered the same. The purpose of behavioral interviews is to screen out those who don't fit. But it's much more difficult to judge a jack of all trades role with such bland interview questions (and ones which I also had to repetitively answer across multiple interviewers - aka what are you strengths / weaknesses). ADVICE TO PALANTIR - If you're looking for specific skill sets, you should test for it - similar to CASE INTERVIEWS used elsewhere, and not just use a very biased and bland format of behavioral interview questions. (This leads to poorly evaluated talent and often misses strong talent by only creating people of like mind / experiences which doesn't work for a jack of all trades role). Overall I'm not disappointed but sad that such a great company is limited by such a poor recruiting process. Further, though I'm US based, spoke only with a couple of folks from UK. Couldn't get a sense of US team.