While communication was polite and transparent, it was slower than expected, and the interview process overall left a lot to be desired. The technical task was excessively labor-intensive, especially considering it met the outlined requirements yet was rejected for a trivial reason. Rejecting a candidate over a version choice of Next.js—without any attempt to understand the rationale—is neither constructive nor a meaningful assessment of technical skill. Evaluating a developer should hinge on their ability to understand concepts, solve problems, and structure code effectively, not on a superficial criterion like JavaScript library versions, which often follow the same core principles. To make matters worse, GitHub Insights revealed that the evaluator barely examined the repository, despite the supposed rigor of their evaluation metrics. Given this, I question the company’s commitment to fair and thorough evaluation and their respect for candidates' time and effort. In short, I would strongly advise candidates against spending more than a minimal amount of time on this company's technical assessment, as the process appears both arbitrary and dismissive. My experience suggests they may lack the will or ability to evaluate talent in a way that respects the substantial efforts candidates invest.