I appreciate the follow-up by the president to my disappointment in not getting a follow-up indicating that I "probably" failed the final assessment. If that is the case, I feel a company of this caliber may address potential candidates with a courtesy rejection note advising them that while they passed the technical assessment, they have decided not to move forward. In my case, despite scoring 100% on the technical assessment, and sending two follow-up emails (not sure if the email addresses I used were manned, just to be fair), I never heard anything back. I do not feel I am owed a response, I am only pursuing this as a recommendation for follow-up on candidates who are also successful (at least partially) in the future, and because I am still interested in being considered if my application did fall through the cracks. That said, if I was rejected, then I accept it as every company is at liberty to accept who they want based on their own criteria... my issue is the assertion that I was "probably" rejected...which is not an answer, especially for a potentially AWESOME candidate....ok, I'm partial :-). For follow-up, my initials are DR Jr and I initially applied and took my assessments on 12/22/21. Thank you again for your follow-up and consideration. - Signed: Potentially an AWESOME business Analyst you may be missing out on! (confident, but don't take too seriously)

The interview is intended to quickly determine if your working and communicating style matches the one of the company and although it sounds relatively simple, it is necessary to meet very well-defined expectations about how to answer the question of "tell me everything you understand about the company and the position you are applying for". As mentioned in previous reviews, the feedback is given very directly to the point where it can be considered harsh. It seems important for the interviewer to tell you his perception (either positive or negative) immediately and with full details, and when it is negative, some comments are difficult to distinguish from constructive feedback to criticism to actual offenses, so it's not surprising to see how many people don't react well. The whole process, though, was very well described and very thorough. When it says that the interview is designed to see if you're a good fit, it is definitely the best possible description, because it takes a very unique profile and personality. It has to be someone who can accept negative feedback openly and on the spot, and make corrections quickly, without asking too many questions and, most importantly, without taking it personally. It felt like the tolerance for results outside the expected is very low, and that the "politeness filter" in conversation despite the very basics is deemed unnecessary, in order to save time.