I had applied for a conference producer role based out of the London office. I was informed via phone and on the day that it will be a 2 hour interview process split into 2 parts. The 1st hour will be an interview followed by a 1 hour copy-writing test. When the interview started it was going well and went on for an hour and 20 mins. After 1 hr 20 mins I was told I have to start the copy-writing test. The test paper also very clearly stated it was a 1 hour test. Much to my surprise, the hiring manager was back in around 40 mins and asked me to stop my test, which was quite shocking as it was meant to be a 1 hr test. The hiring manager informed me that the they thought the interview went quite well and that I had the skills and qualities to match this role. When I told him that I needed more time for the test as it was a 1 hr test, he informed me that since the interview went so well, the test performance will be reviewed accordingly. When asked why he had to finish the test abruptly, he informed me that he had another meeting to get into before which he had to collect the laptop on which I was doing the test. I did not argue much as he sounded very positive from his talk. Almost after a week of follow up, I received an email from HR letting me that unfortunately they will not be going ahead with my application. On contacting HR they informed me that on basis on the interview and project, they had found a better candidate. I was extremely shocked by this response as I thought this was an unfair process. As a candidate who removes time from his/her current job, takes an effort to get to an interview and give their best shot and puts their hopes on an interview; I felt exploited and cheated as a candidate. My test was evaluated against another candidate who got a full 1 hour to perform in his/her copy-writing test while I was not given my full time to perform. How can they choose another employee on basis on an interview which was not a fair process for the other candidate? When I raised this with the HR the response I got was they will have an internal investigation, but I should not hope to get the job as they have offered it to someone else. the whole question here is, how is it justified to offer another candidate a role over me, when the process followed for me is incomplete and unfair? S&P Global Platts is renowned to be a globally present company and that has equal opportunities for all. It is difficult to accept this as a fair process and believe that another candidate was better, when I was not given a fair chance. I would not recommend an interview with this company as it can be demotivating and a time consuming process resulting in an unfair outcome