The interview process moved through multiple stages and into later discussions, but decisions shifted near the end. Input from the interview team appeared to be overridden by senior leadership, with new criteria influencing the final outcome that had not been part of earlier conversations. This created a clear sense of goalposts being moved. The process itself was heavily technical, with little to no discussion around culture, values, or team dynamics. Despite the seniority implied by the role, there was no meaningful opportunity to assess mutual fit beyond technical performance. Overall timelines were also drawn out. Communication gaps stretched over an extended period, with decisions taking weeks and updates coming sporadically. Recruiting coordination and handoffs added friction, reinforcing the impression that candidate time was not a priority. Taken together, the experience reflected an environment where authority appears tightly held by leadership, with outcomes dictated centrally rather than shaped collaboratively. This aligns with themes raised in other reviews and raises concerns about transparency, autonomy, and consistency. Candidates who value influence, clear expectations, and collaborative decision-making may want to think carefully before proceeding.