Apparently, the phrase that ended my candidacy was "work-life balance". First interview, via Teams, was with hiring manager and a colleague. Following this, I was told by the outside recruiter that I was the only one of their candidates who progressed to round two. Round two was three separate Teams calls with three approximate-peer-level people. These three were scheduled on the same day, and I cleared my schedule for the day. Two of the three people were no-call, no-show, on that day, forcing me to reschedule for a day & time later that week when I would be sleep-deprived from a late flight. (This, after their scheduler seemed to have difficulty understanding why I was not available on no notice in the middle of the day, in the middle of the week, for the rescheduled calls.) On one of these rescheduled calls, the person told me (I am paraphrasing here) how aggravated her husband is with her for replying to work emails on vacation - to the extent that she now has to conceal this behavior from him. This triggered me to reply to "do you have any questions" by inquiring about her perception of leadership's support of her work-life balance. This led her to conclude that I was not suitable for Fujifilm, and she stated twice that if I am concerned about work-life balance, I should reconsider this opportunity. That was probably a truthful statement. If she was so burdened that she was a no-call, no-show to our first scheduled conversation, and if she needs to conceal working on vacation from her husband, then that may be all I need to know.