The job spec was/is dreadfully worded, including the job title. It's really an ads integrity risk analyst role, but the way it was advertised was very open ended and obscure as to the kind of risk the role entails. I had to reread the spec dozens of times as it was laced with needless jargon, meandering phrases & was overall very verbose. Interview 1: The interviewer repeated the jargon from the job spec, but at least at this point it was clear that the role focused on ads. She would not clarify the salary ('I can't disclose that right now') , but did ask me would I be flexible once I was asked to state my salary expectations. They were only going to accept 'relevant experience' for the role, which is very opaque and since I'm relatively new to the field, strongly suggested any previous experience in former roles/careers would be discounted. Interview 2: Frankly, I found it difficult to understand the interviewer, who had very broken English. She kept repeating stock phrases. Very opaque on questions I had, and would not disclose salary ('I'll need to check with HR'). Upon learning I had made it to round 3, I emailed the hiring manager asking for some clarity on the salary. It was only at this point I finally received confirmation that I wouldn't be made aware of the salary range at all, unless I was made an offer. Round 3 was thorough, robust and professional. I felt it was my best performance of the 3. The interviewer commended me on a situational question 'that's a good answer'. I asked were there many other rounds and was told yes, a final round with HR if successful. However, I was informed today I wasn't going to be considered further. I received no feedback on my interviews, which, at this point in the process, is frankly ridiculous. The lack of transparency on salary, the deliberate deflection from the truth in interview 2, the rabbiting off from the job spec in interview 1 suggests a very tight, opaque culture that lacks transparency and clarity.