This was the worst interview process I’ve personally gone through, and I strongly advise software engineers to think carefully before entering it. The process took around two months and involved multiple rounds, including additional interviews that were scheduled last-minute without clear communication. There didn’t seem to be a consistent or well-defined structure, and new rounds were introduced even late in the process. Throughout the process, expectations and timelines were frequently unclear or changed. There were instances where the scope of the interview process appeared to shift, including additional rounds being introduced after it seemed the process was nearing completion. At certain points, the communication gave the impression that I had effectively secured the role or was in final stages, and I was encouraged to focus on this opportunity. However, the process continued with additional unexpected steps, which made it difficult to understand where things actually stood. Candidates are required to complete several assignments that felt more like long-form essays than typical engineering tasks. The evaluation system appears to be point-based, but the criteria were unclear and not aligned with standard engineering interview practices, which made the process feel tedious and difficult to navigate. One of the most uncomfortable aspects was being asked to critique product or system designs directly in front of both the manager responsible for the work and their leadership. This created a tense dynamic, and in my experience, led to unprofessional behavior during the discussion. I also had direct interaction with the CEO during the process. While it’s understandable for leadership to be involved, some of the remarks made during the interview felt dismissive of my background and, at times, crossed into personal territory rather than remaining professional. In my opinion, the CEO’s communication style showed a lack of awareness of how certain remarks and behaviors would be perceived in a professional interview setting, which detracted from what should have been a structured and respectful evaluation process. At the end of one of the interviews, the CEO left the meeting abruptly without closing the conversation or saying goodbye, which stood out as unprofessional. Additionally, there were moments where the tone of the interview became unnecessarily confrontational. In one instance, during a design discussion, the manager raised their voice, interrupted me repeatedly, and spoke in a way that felt belittling. The interaction became difficult to continue, and I felt I had to remain silent to avoid further escalation. It was uncomfortable enough that I briefly considered ending the interview altogether. During this exchange, the CEO was present and did not intervene, which further contributed to the overall discomfort of the situation. Another unusual aspect of the process was the stark contrast between early and later interview stages. Initial interactions were professional and welcoming, but the tone shifted significantly in later rounds. The experience in the final interviews felt so inconsistent with earlier stages that, at one point, I questioned whether the process was being conducted in a typical way. The combination of being asked to provide detailed critiques and solutions while also encountering unprofessional behavior made the experience feel unusual and difficult to rationalize. From what I understood, there have been organizational changes that required some team members, including management, to relocate to Japan. While I can’t speak to internal details, the overall tone of the interviews gave the impression of a team under significant pressure, which may have contributed to the interactions I experienced. There was also a noticeable mismatch in technical depth across interviewers. In some cases, I found myself explaining basic concepts rather than being evaluated on real-world engineering skills. Based on my experience and general research into the company, there appear to have been periods of restructuring and layoffs tied to broader economic conditions, as well as past product initiatives that did not succeed. It was not always clear whether the teams hiring were long-term, stable investments, which made the opportunity feel uncertain. Additionally, the six-month probationary period raised concerns for me. Given the length and depth of the interview process, I would encourage candidates to carefully evaluate the risk, as there is limited clarity on long-term alignment between expectations set during interviews and the actual role. During the process, I also had an interaction with HR where it was stated that they were not able to support certain disability-related needs. That, combined with my overall experience, left me with concerns about inclusivity and representation within the organization. Overall, the process felt disorganized, overly long, and lacking respect for candidate time. Combined with the behavior I observed from both leadership and management during interviews, the experience raised serious concerns for me about the company’s engineering culture. Given my experience, I would recommend that candidates approach this process with caution, especially those expecting a consistently supportive or international working environment. It may be helpful to clarify expectations around communication style, team culture, and long-term support early in the process. I also strongly recommend continuing to interview elsewhere in parallel and not relying on timelines or expectations communicated during the process.