If there had been a phone screening, we may have saved each other a lot of time. There was no phone screening, just an email from a recruiter to schedule an in-person 75-minute interview. The recruiter asked me to fill out a detailed employment history form with references, which I found odd because my application included that information; I let them know I'd provide contact info for references if the hiring process proceeded. The email mentioned that the office door would be locked but someone at the front desk would let me in. However, the desk was empty so I knocked and waited for a while before anyone let me in. The actual interview suggested that the team was frazzled. It was designed as 25 minutes with the hiring manager, 25 min with a counterpart, and 25 min with the test. That was not enough time with either interviewer. Hiring Manager spent the majority of the time explaining the company structure to me, a little bit about the role, and then asked me two broad questions that I couldn't tell how they related to the role. HM did not ask about specific experiences, and did not leave time for me to ask questions (in fact, seemed annoyed when I tried asking some). The counterpart held more of a conversation, though brought up mentioned a portion of the job that the HM hadn't mentioned (and didn't have information on it). The initial email mentioned an AI test in which I'd be given sample data to run through an AI of my choice to produce a compelling narrative, to demonstrate how I would go about AI-assisted content creation. This was a result of an AI mandate from the CEO. When I asked some questions about the test itself ("What is the desired final product?"), the HM did not clarify and was almost sarcastic ("not a dissertation"). Ultimately, I got the impression that it was a full-service IC role paying an associate rate. The low pay range may have been acceptable for a narrower scope of responsibilities; however, it ended up being 3x the workload of my current position for 70% of the pay.