The interview process spanned roughly 3 months and required significant investment from me as a candidate. It began with a take-home project — a 6-hour open-ended technical exercise involving their simulation platform, Sedaro Nano. I submitted my work and then heard nothing for two months. I assumed I had been ghosted. When I finally reached out for feedback, it turned out my submission confirmation had bounced — evidently their email server rejects zip files silently — and no one on their end had followed up or noticed. I had to resubmit. When I finally got a chance to proceed, there was a 1-hour technical phone screen, followed by a request for 2-3 professional references with full contact information. I provided them. Worth noting: they collected references before the onsite, not after deciding to extend an offer. That means I asked three professional contacts to vouch for me for a role I was ultimately rejected from. That's not just my time being spent — it's my professional network's time, and it's not something you get to undo. For the third round, I was flown to Arlington, VA for a 4-hour onsite. When I arrived at the building, I genuinely could not tell if I was in the right place. There was very little signage, no receptionist, no one at the door. I stood in what appeared to be an empty office until a manager who wasn't part of the original interview loop happened to hear my buzz and scrambled to figure out where I was supposed to be. For a company that flies candidates cross-country, the first impression was jarring. The engineering exercise and behavioral interviews were conducted professionally. The engineering team is sharp and clearly well-versed in their craft. One of the managers stood out for actually engaging with me authentically — not just assessing my abilities but taking a genuine interest in who I was as a person. She was a class above the rest in that regard. They did take me on a lunch with two members of the team who were perfectly pleasant. I was a little put off, though, that when I asked what folks like to do outside of work, the question didn't really get much airtime. The conversation stayed focused on work culture and work interests. It felt like another interview rather than a casual lunch, which I think was a missed opportunity to connect on a more human level. The final session was a platform overview with the CTO. He read from slides with minimal engagement or eye contact. At one point he rattled through a couple dozen facets of their business and platform, then asked me on the spot which ones I saw myself contributing to. After drinking from the firehose of their entire system overview, I was expected to place myself within a dizzying number of capabilities — most of which I hadn't had a clear picture of until that moment. He made a point of saying the company only wants candidates with multiple competing offers and strong credentials, that they are highly selective and only want the best — whatever that means. He emphasized that this was a startup and not a place to coast, and asked me point blank whether I was going to 'work hard.' I'm not sure what the expected answer to that question is in a job interview. I flew across the country because I was genuinely intrigued by the work. The insinuation that my commitment needed to be tested at that stage was insulting. The overall impression was that the conversation was a formality rather than a dialogue. For a company of this size, the person at the top sets the tone for culture — and this is what that tone felt like. The total candidate investment: a multi-hour take-home, two months of radio silence, a phone screen, handing over professional references, and a cross-country trip — followed by a rejection. For context, I've interviewed with several brand name organizations over the years. None of them asked this much of my time relative to the experience they provided in return. The technical team is sharp and the product is genuinely interesting. But if you value your time as a candidate, weigh that against what the process actually looks like on the ground. If you're going to ask this much of someone, the experience should reflect that investment. This one didn't.