Headline: Unprofessional recruitment process; lack of communication and scope clarity Pros: The initial screening was straightforward and provided basic insight into the company and client. Cons: Unrealistic Assignment Scope: For a senior-level role, the technical assessment was essentially a request to build a full end-to-end ERP-style system. This is an excessive time commitment for a candidate without clear engagement from the team. Lack of Communication: During the development phase, I reached out with critical questions regarding the project scope and technical depth. I received no response for 3 days, forcing me to make assumptions to meet the deadline. Lack of Feedback: After submitting a fully functional Python (FastAPI) and ReactJS application, I received a generic rejection within 24 hours. Despite being a senior candidate, requests for specific technical feedback were ignored. Role Misalignment: While I applied for a Solution Architect position, the process was treated like a Python Lead/Developer role. It felt as though the company was looking for free development work or lacked an understanding of the Architect's role. Advice to Management: Respect the time of senior candidates. If you require a multi-day technical assignment, you must be available to answer scope questions. Providing zero feedback after a candidate invests significant hours into your "test" is unprofessional and damages your employer brand. A few things to consider before posting: The "Free Work" Trap: You mentioned it felt like they just wanted a developer. In the industry, if a company asks for a "complete ERP" as a test but won't talk to you during the process, it’s a huge red flag that they might just be harvesting code or ideas.

I completed a take-home technical assignment that required a serious time commitment. I received a rejection within roughly an hour of submission, with absolutely no feedback. A rejection that quickly strongly suggests the work was not meaningfully evaluated. If the role was already filled, an internal candidate was preferred, or the decision had effectively been made beforehand, candidates should not be asked to invest unpaid engineering effort. Requesting substantial technical work and then providing zero feedback reflects poorly on the company’s hiring discipline. It signals a lack of structured evaluation and a disregard for candidate time. If a company expects engineering quality and professionalism from candidates, its hiring process should demonstrate the same standards.