The first step was an initial screen with the hiring manager which went well. There were several red flags with the coding interview that followed which reflected poorly on their team and felt suspicious. 1. When I asked the recruiter beforehand which languages were allowed for the coding interview, he said java, typescript, clojure, javascript, and python. When I got to the interview, I was told I could only use Typescript. Candidates typically do not practice algorithm questions in multiple languages, but especially not when they ask and are told they can choose the language. I don't use Typescript in my dayjob so it's not first nature, but I could have easily come more prepared for a Typescript coding session if I knew that was what it was going to be. 2. The meeting invitation described the coding interview with these words: "This step is to see how you problem-solve so you won't need to worry about syntax" and "While you're in this interview, we'd like you to verbally explain your thought process to us by talking us through your solution as you build it." This conveys a focus on communicating my thought process while problem solving in a manner that can be understood and followed by the interviewer, not speeding through the problem. However their feedback for me was that I should have focused on solving the problem quickly and not talking through it or pseudocoding. If they want the candidate to focus on solving the problem quickly, I feel that should have been communicated better. 3. At the start of the coding interview, I asked to confirm if the expectation was to solve the problem within 30 minutes, as listed in the calendar event agenda. I was told there was not an expected amount of time to solve it and again, to focus on communicating my problem solving. I got a fully working solution within approximately 30 minutes, and then handled additional edge cases which were not in the problem description in the 5-10 minutes after that. Here again, I feel there was very poor communication about what was expected. At best there was a misunderstanding, at worst I was misled / set up to fail. It's disappointing the experience turned out this way, I had a legitimate interest in the role and team, but I don't think this interview process was effective in assessing me as a candidate for the role. I would recommend caution for candidates interviewing with them.