I manually tested the website quite thoroughly and documented my tests and the issues/questions that it raised quite thoroughly. I reused my existing my code-base as a starting point for automating web based applications (an ever ongoing work-in -progress), which then allowed me to focus on getting the best automation completed that I could in a reasonable time. However, the feedback that I received did not seem to align to the started purpose at all. There was no mention of the quality of either my manual testing or the automation I had completed. They just criticised the coding standards that I had adopted in my underlying automation framework, which I would expect might be an interesting point to discuss in person in the context of potential future assignments rather than dismiss out if hand. Some points seemed fair comment, but these only seemed to apply to my underlying automation rather then the new code written purposely for the exercise, which seems unfair. They said the code I provided was much more than what was needed, "over-engineering" ... but there was no stipulation that you could not reuse your own existing code that was capable of serving wider needs than just the immediate task at hand , as I would to do in any new role - why re-invent the wheel? There was no stipulation that and that there should be a minimal solution written entirely from scratch. They accused me of copying my code, without asking if that were the case, which it is not, except where I have reused working solutions from Stacktrace, etc to address difficult issues for which I have usually kept a reference to my source. They said my project structure was not satisfactory, but did not explain what they didn't like about it, or what "standard" I had not followed, which is not very helpful.