I was approached by a recruiter via LinkedIn about a position at a startup in Austin, TX focused on real estate software. The interview was scheduled for 45 minutes and described as a coding exercise conducted by an Executive Assistant. This immediately raised a red flag for me. It is unusual for a non-technical role to lead a technical coding interview, especially as the first step in the process. When I joined the meeting, she introduced herself and spoke briefly about the company. However, she did not ask about my background, technical experience, or salary expectations, which are typically covered in an initial screening. Instead, within a few minutes, she moved directly to the coding exercise. This was the second red flag, as there was no effort to determine whether I was a mutual fit for the role. Before starting the exercise, she asked if I had any questions. I asked what the rest of the interview process would look like if I passed this stage. At that point, she appeared visibly nervous and seemed unprepared for the question. She looked around, hesitated, and gave an unclear response along the lines of another coding exercise, then a behavioral interview, and finally a meeting with the CEO. The answer did not sound structured or well defined, which was the third red flag. She then shared a LeetCode link with a relatively straightforward string problem and left the meeting for me to solve it independently. I completed the solution within 25 minutes and included test cases. Two hours later, I received a message from the recruiter stating that my code was “unapproved,” without any explanation or feedback. Shortly afterward, I received an automated email from Paraform requesting interview feedback. Overall, the experience felt disorganized and lacking in transparency. The multiple red flags throughout the process made it difficult to feel confident in the company’s interview structure or professionalism. Whether they are trying to redefine their interview process or not, it was a total waste of my time