It was a very difficult and unfortunate interview process. I passed a phone screen and was offered an onsite interview in California. I flew across the country for the interview (they kindly reimbursed for some expenses). The onsite interview was very difficult and involved. There was a 90-minute handwritten test and then an additional 4-5 hours of interviewing. The individuals I interviewed with all had very unique and different expectations for the would-be technical writer. Most of which was not clearly articulated or explained. The majority of individuals were clear about how they would interact with the role, but predominately they lacked an emphasis on the actually writing component or requirements. Many individuals including the hiring manager stated that a technical writing background would be appreciated but not required. I recommend that you don't acknowledge this as factual, rather buff up on your technical writing knowledge and highlight your work samples. Which transitions me to the handwritten test. The was a difficult exam as it was relatively short, nuanced, and was to be completed in pencil. I recommend you practice your handwriting skills, certainly study your grammar and specific technical writing terms/practices. I was confused by what was said to me only to receive a rejection. I'd be wary of this organization and applying, everyone was nice and intelligent, but they made it seem like they really wanted to fill the role with any relatively skilled writer, especially given the need for support from a myriad of departments. Many of the 1-on-1 interviews were conversational but centered around very specific office dynamic questions. For example, "what would you do as a technical writer if someone agreed with a client to do additional work and it required extra effort from the development team but they couldn't deliver?" And more of those sort of questions. And be prepared to be talked at a lot by tech/computer science professionals and less from the actual hiring manager. Below are some of the test questions I can recall.

Acumen tries to cut corners by getting rid of the initial HR phone screen. The process for me was 1) fill out an abnormally long application, with multiple short answer questions; 2) submit writing samples; and 3) have a phone call with three members of the team. The phone call was wildly unpleasant. The interviewers were terse (one was openly hostile), asking a series of predetermined questions with little reaction to my answers. It was also clear they had not read my writing samples beforehand. Without the HR call, I felt completely unprepared, with a shaky understanding of the actual day-to-day of the job (the job description was typically vague) or the salary. I left the phone interview unsure if I even wanted to continue with next steps (an in-person interview/writing test). The feeling must have been mutual because I received a standard email rejection a few days later.