4 Steps in general - starting with Recuirter, which went really well and showed great potential. Then the latter one was a simulation of what the role would look like. After that say said that there will be a second trial, and then another simulation with the team progressing on what was drawn first. The simulation is a great approach to give the company and people an early chance of how would the work be. But given to the fact that i write >70WPM, i still managed to fall behind on the speed of what they used to explain their simulation of the process. Some answers they give is a bit vague, makes one wonder during the interview. The feedback they gave at the end failed to be real direct, instead vague about not being detailed enough, given the time we had (30 min) No response after that interview.

tl;dr - do not waste your time The hiring process is tediously long and becomes an unpaid onboarding mid-process. You'll have an initial screening call which will be followed by "in-role interviews". Not sure how many of them are in total, I had two. First one was the mapping session. You get a short description of the mockup company and a couple of choices (sales or marketing process), also you get their documentation about requirements and best practices as well as an example recording of a session. If you pay attention, you'll notice, that the example session already doesn't follow their own guidelines. The session itself may be completely different from what you expect - for example, the list of participants can and will be different from what is described in the scenario so be ready for that. The second session is supposed to be a continuation of the first one and is supposed to mock the "Regular update" session. Here you will get even more docs - and here is when the "onboarding" truly begins. I'd say that this session turned into a complete mess. During the first one the interviewers were catching up on the improv part and in the end it worked. During the 2nd one it seemed like both interviewers came to a different call - and it was not clear if they are out of their roles or not. Thus some of the questions made no sense and overall it felt more like some weird stress test during a call that was supposed to test the preparation and presentation skills. Also a bunch of the "feedback" cons they mentioned during this call was related to the scenario - they clearly had 0 idea of what they were sending candidates. What was even more surprising is that after a speech about "more personalized approach" during this session all I got from them was a copy-pasted email with "While your experience is impressive, at this time we have decided to move forward with other candidates whose background more closely fits our needs". No wonder they can't close this position for months. I do believe that the team has different opinions on who and how they should be looking for and this seems like a huge red flag. Overall - not worth the time.