If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.

Were the next stages and timelines explained?
How relevant did the interview activities feel to the role?
What communication would have helped you prepare?
Was it clear whom to contact about the process?
Which instruction would have helped you prepare without guessing?

Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable:
1. Applicants need to distinguish the next activity from an estimated decision date. Identify missing stages or uncertain timing and improve process communication without promising a hiring outcome.
2. Perceived relevance shows whether candidates understand why an interview exercise is included. Clarify its connection to role responsibilities; this feedback alone cannot validate assessment fairness or predictive value.
3. Preparation needs reveal information candidates lacked before participating, such as format, equipment or expected activities. Improve advance guidance without collecting private background details or influencing selection decisions.
4. A usable contact route allows applicants to resolve process questions without guessing who owns them. Check discoverability and remit of the published contact rather than requesting personal correspondence.
5. Concrete instruction gaps distinguish reasonable preparation from assumptions candidates had to invent. Explain the relevant activity and prerequisites while avoiding privileged answers that undermine the assessment.