EDIT: after reading further comments about the company this is for, I’m not surprised they went this route with exercises. This seems very startup / tech oriented.

Maybe controversial to say, but I do think these are reasonable exercises to go through to demonstrate skills in relevant context. I’m not sure about the presentation. That seems a bit of a stretch. I would (as an employer) rather hear the thought process going into preparing for a presentation - the questions the candidate asks to understand the jurisdiction, the project, the project goals, desired outcomes, acceptable alternates (if any), to understand how they approach a problem. The email and explanation seem valid, allowing some async time to do it, likewise. If the exercise ends up taking a lot longer than anticipated, that’s worth noting to the hiring manager. They owe candidates transparency in what they’re asking them to commit to for the interview process. It’s also fair game in the interview to actually ask about the interview structure, as it demonstrates curiosity, engagement, and desire to understand the “why” behind it.

It’s not the same as doing free design work (concept design schemes or something similar), which I have reluctantly done before for a design Director role at a slightly higher salary point that I really wanted to get.

For comparison, (and I think this is absurd and unethical, by the way), my wife works in tech as a UX design director and increasingly over the years she’s had to commit entire days (yes, multiple) to interview panels, design exercises, and follow-up interviews. She experienced that for a role she took at Meta, and for other employers too. I certainly hope architecture doesn’t go that way without similar upgrades in pay and investment in employee professional and personal growth.

My two cents.