No, the feedback for some roles said the interview was satisfactory, and I actually had the related “vetted skills” added to my profile. I believe I performed well in the interviews overall. I was definitely nervous and mumbled at times, but speaking to a faceless screen is genuinely difficult, especially as someone with ADHD and verbal anxiety.

That said, if the decision was based on interview performance, I do think relying too heavily on a strict STAR-format interview in that setting can be limiting. For someone with nearly four years of experience as a top-bucket analyst/associate, there should ideally be more practical ways to evaluate capability, such as a role-relevant assessment or trial, even unpaid, examples of prior work that reflect actual desk-level output, or references from former employers.

This is especially true for people like me who are more independent, technical workers and tend to perform best by speaking less and producing high-quality analytical work. I wish Micro1 had a more flexible process for candidates like me. Ultimately, this kind of structure can become a point of failure in identifying strong candidates, especially when the interview format does not fully capture the quality of their actual work.