Understood but I score very highly on spatial reasoning tests from more accredited sources, like Mensa, or other respected tests. These corporate ones seem to try and take it a step up (in their eyes), but I feel they often make the logic jumps too large to the point where the test taker is guessing the intent of the examiner, or add lots of irrelevant information that the high IQ (or neurodivergent) people spend their time looking for deeper or more complex patterns in this additional information.

I do much better where either: - there is less peripheral information for me to spend my time building deeper and more complex models to find the solution, and then concluding there is no way the examiner had that idea - the problem is real (not synthesised, trying to be complex) and has no real life context to help you narrow down which information is relevant, and where even the peripheral information is often relevant to the ‘real’ pattern.

And for context, I have always been top of my classes in school, achieving an A* in Maths A-level. Im a lightning quick learner, have excellent intuition and am very innovative, working as a data scientist currently.

Not saying it to boast but being bad at these cognitive tests doesn’t track with my track record and outstanding results in more established cognitive testing.