As a senior engineer with experience successfully hiring candidates at other companies, I found this interview process to be poorly aligned with the expectations set by recruiters and the provided materials.

The structure did not seem designed to effectively assess a candidate’s ability to succeed in the role. Instead, the experience appeared more reflective of the interviewer’s preferences rather than an objective evaluation of the candidate.

The process left little room for collaboration, creativity, constructive feedback, and problem-solving—the core aspects of good engineering. Instead, it allowed for significant interviewer bias, interruptions, and undue influence on the candidate’s success.

If this approach is representative of how interviews are conducted at the company, it raises concerns about the overall culture of collaboration and teamwork.

The inconsistency in the process suggests that success may be arbitrary rather than based on a clear, structured assessment. If this is the primary method for evaluating engineering talent, it may indicate significant gaps in leadership’s ability to identify and hire strong candidates. A more standardized and thoughtful approach would greatly improve the experience for both candidates and the company.

After having this experience, I immediately withdrew my candidacy—I had seen enough.

The jury is still out on how successful ServiceTitan will be as a public company.

Implement a predefined interface for a generic collection of nested key-value pairs.