I totally understand not wanting to jump through new hoops for a job. The goal isn't to make interviewing harder or add more steps, it's to make it more representative of actual work. But if the current process is working for you as a candidate, then this probably isn't solving your problem.
You're right about the "10+ monthly" number - that was probably too high for most companies. More realistic is probably 3-5 monthly for growing startups, but your point stands.
On the tooling disputes - this is actually something we're grappling with. You're absolutely right that engineers want to pick their tools, and being forced into unfamiliar AI interfaces could be worse than a whiteboard. We're experimenting with letting candidates choose their preferred AI assistant (Claude, ChatGPT, etc.) rather than forcing our choice.
The cultural/social component point is spot-on. This isn't meant to replace human interaction entirely - more to supplement the technical assessment part. The in-person cultural evaluation is still crucial.
Curious: do you think there's any way to make technical assessment more realistic without introducing new tool friction?
Appreciate the honest take.