I was initially shortlisted for two different Agoda roles: **Senior Analyst – Customer Experience Group (Bangkok-based with relocation support)** and another role within the **Supply Analytics team**. For both positions, I received separate Alooba assessments, and the difference between them was significant. The CEG assessment was heavily focused on marketing analytics, charts, statistics, SQL, and included a one-minute video response question. The Supply Analytics assessment, on the other hand, was much more technical, covering data analytics, data science concepts, advanced statistics, and considerably more challenging SQL questions. I scored 81% on the Supply Analytics assessment, but since I had already completed the CEG assessment first, I was only considered for the initial HR screening related to that track. What made things more confusing was that the interview invitation mentioned the role as **Associate Analyst / Analyst / Senior Analyst, Marketing Analytics [SHP]**, which didn't clearly align with either of the positions I had originally applied for. Wanting to be fully prepared, I invested a significant amount of time researching Thailand's taxation system, understanding relocation implications, evaluating cost of living, and revising technical concepts that I expected would be covered during the interviews. The HR representative also explicitly stated that every round in the process would be an elimination round and that unsuccessful candidates would simply receive a rejection email and have their application closed. When I raised concerns about the mismatch between the job titles, assessments, and interview communications, I received a fairly generic response that the team would check internally and get back to me. However, there seemed to be very little clarity around the actual role itself. Basic information such as the team structure, KPIs, responsibilities, and expectations was not available during the HR discussion. In fact, I was informed that the final team assignment would only be decided later in the process based on interview performance. At that stage, even the recruiter could not clearly explain which team I would eventually join, what business problems I would be working on, or how success in the role would be measured. The explanation was essentially that the hiring managers would determine the best fit later, leaving candidates to prepare extensively without having a concrete understanding of the actual position they were interviewing for. Overall, the experience felt far more ambiguous than expected. A considerable amount of preparation was required from the candidate side, yet there appeared to be limited transparency regarding the role, team alignment, and long-term expectations throughout the early stages of the process.