Oh ouch. That was not the intention but I can be socially awkward at times. Perhaps you can help me understand what I said that was wrong?

Happy to adjust the way I communicate so long as I can express that it was writing out code that didn't work as opposed to architecture and/or technical communication.

For me, it has two problems. The tone has this anodyne corporate PR flavor: whiteboarding isn’t really collaborative (“our”), nor is it an “experience” in the way that, say, hang-gliding is.

It’s also not particularly actionable. Obviously, it implies that you need to brush up on either a) algorithms, b) coding, or c) investigating a problem. However, you could just come out and say that. Some specific feedback on the problems that the applicant “failed” would be incredibly nice but is probably too much work. However, some general suggestions for how to improve would also make this feel more constructive, along with some instructions (if any) on how to reapply. Possibly something like “We felt that your knowledge of data structures was a weakness. Many of our engineers swear by Skiena’s Algorithm Design Manual, or.... If you are still interested in ABC Corp, we would be happy to consider a new application in six months.”

I see. I used to do that but someone told me that telling them about books that were common knowledge just sounded condescending. What I’m trying to express here is also that we just failed to acquire positive signal. We recognize that our process is imperfect (and I say this) so I don’t want to tell them there’s a weakness or anything just a mismatch of expectations.

But point taken and I’ll bias back in that direction. Without any irony, thanks for the feedback ;)