Three-stage process including technical and initial behavioural rounds, both of which were positive. The final stage was a 30-minute interview that felt rushed, loosely structured, and not at the same level of rigour as the earlier stages. Feedback provided was that I did not demonstrate enough “pushback,” despite this not really being clearly explored or prompted during the interview itself. Communication during the final stage was at times difficult to follow, which significantly limited the ability to have a coherent back-and-forth discussion. The impression throughout the final stage was that the decision criteria were not clearly defined or consistently applied, and that the interview itself was not effectively aligned to the stated evaluation requirements. Given the limited time and lack of targeted questioning around the feedback provided, the outcome felt largely pre-determined rather than evidence-led. After completing multiple stages, the final outcome was communicated via a generic rejection stating that other candidates were a closer match, with minimal specific or actionable feedback. Overall, the process did not reflect the level of rigour, transparency, or consistency expected for a senior-level hiring process, particularly given the time investment required across multiple stages.