Applied directly for the position. Recruiter reached out and the process was a follows: 1) Timed Logic Test. 2) Supervised logic test 3) Recruiter screen 4) Skills Interview with Hiring Manager 5) Written Case Study 6) Bar Raiser Interview with non-team employee 7) Team Fit interview Well coordinated and transparent process but very lengthy (7 stages over 2 months). Everyone was friendly and you are told exactly who will be interviewing you and what they will be assessing. However, after going through full the process and receiving incredibly positive feedback after each stage, I received a shockingly generic rejection as they opted for someone whose "background was more suited to the position". I wanted to give this a positive as the process is smooth and gives candidates a chance to really demonstrate their suitability for a position, particularly if you're from a different industry. However it was the quality of the feedback after the whole process that was the kicker for me. I've got no issue with rejection and accept that there are always candidates that are more suited for any given role than me, but why put someone through such an arduous process, constantly give them really encouraging feedback, then tell them that their background isn't suitable? Surely that is an aspect which is filtered out at the early stage interviews with the recruiter and the hiring manager... As with all interviews, an enriching process that helps you grow in ways in which you would not anticipate (provided you have the right attitude). No doubt that I have learned things that I can apply in my career journey, but nonetheless an unforgiving process that gives limited regard to the amount of time and energy candidates invest into demonstrating their suitability for a position.