Tl;dr - The experience left me with the impression that candidate time, effort, and professional commitments were not treated with the same level of respect that candidates are expected to show throughout the hiring process. I completed both an initial recruiter screening and a technical screening with a Principal Engineer and was informed that I had successfully advanced to the full onsite interview loop. Based on that communication, I took time away from work, rearranged existing commitments, prepared for what I understood to be the final stage of the interview process, and provided my own transportation to the office. The onsite schedule was later changed with only one day's notice, requiring additional adjustments on my end. On the day of the interview, the first interview in the supposed onsite loop was conducted virtually. After completing that interview, driving to the office, navigating the parking structure, and arriving for the remainder of the scheduled onsite interviews, I received a rejection email while walking to the reception desk. What was presented as the beginning of a full onsite interview loop was, in practice, an additional screening round that determined whether the rest of the onsite would proceed. This was never communicated in advance. After already completing a recruiter screen and a technical screen with a Principal Engineer, I had every reason to believe I was participating in the final interview stage rather than another pass/fail gate. The issue is not the hiring decision itself. Companies should hire the candidates they believe are the best fit. The issue is that the process required a candidate to invest significant time, effort, and personal expense preparing for and traveling to an onsite interview that was effectively canceled after a single virtual interview. If that interview was sufficient to end the process, the decision should have been made before asking a candidate to take time away from work and travel to the office.