I recently completed a multi-stage interview process for a Client Success role. While each individual I met was personable, the process overall reflected a lack of internal alignment. Across three interviews, the scope of the role changed materially. The initial discussion outlined a multi-account portfolio with a defined ACV range, which already differed from the posted job description. In the second interview, the role was repositioned as highly strategic, focused on a single large enterprise brand with multiple service lines and requiring deep, consultative engagement, with playbooks described as in development. In the final interview, expectations shifted again. The book of business was described as still to be determined, with the role characterized as highly reactive, involving frequent high-touch engagement, reporting-heavy work, and effectively on-demand availability. It was also indicated that formal playbooks were not yet established. The final-stage conversation lacked structure and raised additional questions around role clarity and day-to-day execution. Shortly thereafter, I received a generic rejection without any specific feedback. Candidates should expect a consistent and clearly defined role narrative across interview stages. That was not the case here. Prospective candidates would be well-served to ask direct questions early regarding scope, operating model, and expectations to ensure alignment. Overall, the experience suggested an organization still working to define the role and its operating model in practice.