I want to start by saying that everyone I met was friendly and welcoming, and the company itself seems to have an interesting client base. However, I found the interview process unstructured and at times unclear. The scope of the role appeared to shift during the process, which made it difficult for me to fully understand how my experience was being evaluated. I spent a significant amount of time preparing the written task and was told that i’d present / discuss it in more depth, but there was limited to no opportunity to do so. This left me unsure how my technical writing and understanding of the role were ultimately assessed. Across stages, I was asked several repetitive questions rather than structured competency-based ones. During the final (on-site) panel there were also technical issues, which meant 2 out of 3 panel members couldn’t see me. As a result, I was asked to describe my reactions to points raised rather than panel members being able to observe directly, which added to the sense that the process was somewhat improvised. During the final interview itself, I did not observe any note-taking or a clear evaluation framework being used. This made it difficult to understand how responses were being formally assessed and compared, and gave the impression that decisions may have been based more on general impressions than on a consistent set of criteria. A more structured and transparent approach would have provided greater clarity around how technical experience was being assessed.