Last year a recruiter from a multinational company (3000 people worldwide, couple of hundred in the local office) found me on LinkedIn. We started to talk and I applied for that position. The first test was a HackerRank test, 3 tasks in 60 minutes. I solved one, spent too much time (in vain) on task 2 so I lacked a minute or two to finish task 3. In spite of this I got invited into the next round of interviews, I visited the local office, had a chat with the prospective team leader, etc. In the end they decided to hire an other applicant - fair enough.
Six months later I got an other message from a recruiter from the same multinational company. I again got the HackerRank test which was the very same test I got previously (I don't know if this was accidental or not). Although I didn't remember the solutions, I remembered to leave task 2 last and this time I managed to solve all 3 tasks with a few minutes to spare. However, after the test I didn't get any feedback from the recruiter for weeks and when I asked politely what's the status, I got "you're not selected".
I find it strange that when I failed the test, I advanced to the next round of interviews, but when I passed the test, I didn't. Why?
Then I remembered that at a previous (much smaller, 10 people at the local office) employer the management had an OKR to always have more job applicants than the number of actual job openings. Which makes some sense, they want to have people "in the queue" in case someone decides to leave - but makes me wonder: is it possible that the recruiter had some kind of goal to "have N number of people apply for the job" even if they didn't want to actually hire anybody? At such a large company (when there's always someone in house available, "between projects") it doesn't make that much sense to "have people in the queue"...