I invested a significant amount of time interviewing with ZS, including multiple rounds and two substantial presentations that required extensive preparation. Unfortunately, the experience left me feeling that candidates’ time is not valued. After completing the presentations, I received feedback that I lacked “attention to detail” and did not demonstrate a “baseline understanding of the role’s function.” This was surprising given that the interview process provided limited guidance on expectations, and at no point during the interviews did anyone indicate concerns about my understanding of the position. What was most frustrating was the apparent lack of engagement during the presentation process itself. The team seemed disengaged, asked very few substantive questions, and gave the impression that the decision may have already been made before I ever presented. If there were concerns about fit or capabilities, those should have been surfaced earlier rather than asking candidates to spend hours creating unpaid work products. Interviewing is a two-way street. Candidates are expected to prepare thoughtfully and professionally, but employers should also respect the considerable time and effort applicants invest. Requiring multiple presentations only to deliver vague, subjective feedback afterward feels less like an evaluation process and more like free consulting. I left the process with the impression that ZS has room to improve its candidate experience, particularly around transparency, calibration of expectations, and respect for applicants’ time.