Part 3 is a cross-role evidence appendix for the InterSystems SDE New Grad / CDP OA series.

Coverage: 18 firsthand InterSystems reports from technical, product, support, sales, management, and internship roles. They are included only because they preserve TET, PI, or PET mechanics that the 14 direct New Grad / CDP reports do not. They are not counted as New Grad experiences and do not prove identical assessments across roles.

The distinction matters: this appendix can help with preparation, but a role-specific report always outranks a company-wide pattern.

Eighteen cross-role InterSystems assessment reports

These entries remain separate from the CDP evidence. They corroborate assessment mechanics but do not prove that every CDP candidate receives the identical configuration.

Support 01: Application Specialist / RCM — 35-minute TET

Report date: September 2024 · Role: Application Specialist / RCM · Result: Did not advance

1. TET contained 20 multiple-choice questions in 35 minutes.
2. Documentation was supplied for every segment.
3. The candidate described the supplied documentation as the only permitted help.
4. The candidate answered 16 of 20 and wished for roughly five additional minutes.

Support 02: Senior manager — 70-minute stack test

Report date: December 2024 · Level: Director/management · Result: Rejected after TET

1. TET contained 20 questions in 70 minutes.
2. Questions involved logic, stacks, and custom symbols.
3. The early section felt straightforward.
4. The candidate believed one symbol was confused around question 12 and that the error then affected later answers.
5. The recruiter disclosed the score privately, but the candidate did not publish the number.

Support 03: Experienced developer — variables, strings, and concatenation

Report date: October 2025 · Experience: About ten years · Result: Rejected after TET

1. TET used a made-up pseudo-language.
2. It tested variable assignment, numeric values, quoted strings, concatenation, and output tracing.
3. The candidate received 20 questions in 35 minutes.
4. Later combinations were difficult under the timer.
5. The candidate illustrated the style with A assigned “3,” B assigned “7,” and a documented concatenation operation producing the string “37,” while stressing that the live items were harder.

Support 04: Forty-five-minute TET — final two guessed

Report date: October 2025 · Stage: TET · Result: Not disclosed

1. Twenty questions in 45 minutes.
2. Time pressure forced guesses on the final two questions.
3. The candidate hoped for at least 16/20 and asked others about the cutoff.
4. The report therefore does not establish that 16/20 is a passing score.

Support 05: Cloud Product Manager — stacks and GRID

Report date: October 2024 · Role: Cloud Product Manager

1. The language was defined inside the test.
2. The task was to understand and apply that definition.
3. The candidate described it as based on stacks and GRID.
4. The candidate called it a language created for the assessment.

Support 06: Linux System Administrator — rejected at TET

Report date: November 2024 · Role: Linux System Administrator · Location: Sydney · Result: Rejected

1. TET came before a meaningful human interview.
2. The candidate considered the allotted time insufficient.
3. The candidate felt the content did not match the position well.
4. No useful score or failure feedback was provided.

Support 07: Sydney Summer Intern — pseudo-code assessment

Report date: March 2024 · Role: Summer Intern · Location: Sydney · Result: Rejected later

1. The process began with pseudo-coding questions using programming concepts but no ordinary programming language.
2. A basic live conversation followed.
3. A deeper discussion of the candidate’s technology experience followed that.

Support 08: Summer Intern — offer after a five-month process

Report date: February 2025 · Interview date: January 2025 · Role: Summer Intern · Result: Offer

1. The OA contained TET, PET, and PI.
2. TET tested learning a new programming language.
3. PET felt SAT-like.
4. PI was behavioral.
5. Only after passing the assessments did the resume become visible to hiring managers.
6. A recruiter interview and a program-manager interview occurred on the same day.
7. The candidate applied September 25 and received the offer February 19.

Support 09: Summer Intern — remote OA and round robin

Report date: February 2025 · Role: Summer Intern · Result: Passed OA, rejected next round

1. TET and PET formed the first round.
2. The candidate completed and passed them remotely.
3. A round-robin interview followed.
4. Interview questions focused mainly on projects.

Support 10: Sales Engineer — progressive custom language

Report date: March 2025 · Role: Sales Engineer · Result: Rejected later

1. The take-home began with multiple-choice questions about a custom language.
2. The language was developed progressively across the assessment.
3. The candidate described it as an interesting test of learning an unfamiliar system.
4. The candidate passed it and proceeded to recruiter and director conversations.

Support 11: Recruiting Manager — 20-question PET-style test

Report date: June 2025 · Role: Recruiting Manager · Result: Rejected after recruiter conversation

1. The process used a brief personality test.
2. It also used a 45-minute, 20-question logic and reasoning assessment.
3. The candidate compared the questions to the SAT.
4. The candidate passed but was not shown a numerical score.

Support 12: Quality Development Engineer — candidate-reported 80% threshold

Report date: June 2025 · Role: Quality Development Engineer · Location: Boston · Result: Offer

1. The candidate completed critical-thinking, personality, and coding assessments.
2. The candidate reported that at least 80% on the critical-thinking assessment was required for consideration.
3. This is one candidate’s statement, not a current public company policy.
4. It does not cleanly match the older 17/20 threshold report.

Support 13: Solutions Consultant — stack machine

Report date: September 2025 · Role: Solutions Consultant · Result: Advanced after TET

1. TET used a made-up language built around stack storage.
2. Documentation introduced commands for pushing values and for popping or printing them.
3. Questions presented longer command sequences and asked for their output.
4. The candidate felt confident and received a moving-forward message a few days later.
5. No score was disclosed.

Support 14: AI Application Engineer — camera capture

Report date: November 2025 · Role: AI Application Engineer · Location: Boston · Result: Rejected after recruiter stage

1. Three tests were used: a learning assessment, a behavioral assessment, and a GRE/GMAT-like English and mathematics test.
2. TET contained 20 questions and used camera capture.
3. Rules introduced earlier had to be remembered throughout the assessment.
4. Later interviews were conversational rather than coding rounds.

Support 15: Sales Engineer — nearly two hours of testing

Report date: February 2026 · Role: Sales Engineer · Result: Rejected before human contact

1. TET, PI, and PET were completed before speaking with anyone.
2. TET was a 70-minute, non-LeetCode, pass/fail technical assessment with webcam proctoring.
3. PET covered mathematics, logic, and reasoning.
4. PI was behavioral.
5. Total assessment time was close to two hours.

Support 16: Senior Applications Developer — clearest recent topic list

Report date: March 2026 · Role: Senior Applications Developer · Result: Rejected after TET

1. TET contained 20 questions in 70 minutes.
2. The candidate listed stack, queue, workflow, multi-select, and logic.
3. The candidate said the normal next step was PI and PET, followed by an HR call.

Support 17: Manager, Technical Services — HackerRank first

Report date: June 2026 · Role: Manager, Technical Services · Location: London · Result: Rejected

1. The first stage was a HackerRank TET.
2. The candidate described it as a proprietary technical and logic assessment intended to measure learning agility.
3. The candidate felt it carried too much weight for a senior people-leadership role.
4. No useful failure feedback was provided.

Support 18: Boston Intern — language-learning OA and offer

Report date: August 2026 · Role: Intern · Location: Boston · Result: Offer

1. The candidate met InterSystems at a career fair.
2. The technical OA required learning a new coding language and solving problems with it.
3. A personality assessment followed.
4. Recruiter and technical-team calls led to team matching.

Question bank location

The complete TET / PET / PI question bank has been moved to the top of Part 1. This appendix keeps the source-by-source cross-role reports and the unresolved disagreements without repeating the bank.

Preserved disagreements

• TET duration: 35, 45, and 70 minutes all appear in firsthand reports. The actual invitation controls.
• Passing score: an old report and old company material say 17/20; a 2025 candidate reported an 80% critical-thinking threshold; current CDP reports generally disclose no score.
• Language/version: older reports use MUMPS, Caché, ObjectScript, Epic-like, or MIIS language; 2024 evidence explicitly names stacks and GRID.
• Process order: some reports say TET first and PI/PET only after passing; other candidates describe all three as one OA package.
• Live technical content: some CDP candidates report coding or computer-systems discussion; others report logic, projects, and behavioral questions with no LeetCode.

What repeated often enough to prioritize

Tier 1: Practice until automatic

1. Track newly introduced rules without losing earlier ones.
2. Simulate stack operations carefully, including which end is the top and what each symbol consumes or produces.
3. Work under a strict clock. Several candidates understood the material but ran out of time.
4. For PET-style work, practice reading tables, basic arithmetic, short business passages, and inference choices.

Tier 2: Be ready to explain deeply

1. Explain the state of a stack or queue after every operation instead of jumping to the final answer.
2. Separate strings from numbers and watch for conversion or concatenation rules.
3. If the process advances, be ready to explain unfamiliar code, prior projects, testing choices, complexity, and tradeoffs aloud.

Tier 3: Process awareness

1. Expect sequencing to vary. Some candidates received TET first and PI/PET only after passing; others received all three together.
2. Treat historical cutoff claims as historical. The accessible evidence does not verify a current universal cutoff.
3. Leave time for a long hiring process. Several CDP reports include team interviews, references, and executive review.

Final checklist

TET

☐ Practice LIFO stack tracing and simple queue tracing on paper.

☐ Keep a compact rule table while solving: symbol, input consumed, output produced, and state change.

☐ Re-evaluate from the exact order specified by the prompt; do not import normal operator precedence unless the test states it.

☐ Budget time for later questions that combine more rules.

PI

☐ Select the language in which the adjectives are easiest to distinguish.

☐ Answer as yourself; the evidence does not support a hidden answer key.

PET

☐ Practice missing-value tables, percentages, ratios, and short quantitative business problems.

☐ Practice syllogistic reasoning and “must be true / probably true / cannot be determined” distinctions.

☐ Practice finding the main point and warranted inference in short passages.

Test setup

☐ Use a supported browser and complete the proctoring check before the timer starts.

☐ Prepare a quiet space, stable connection, calculator only if the invitation permits it, and scratch paper only if allowed.

No newly found 1Point3Acres material is included. No complete suspected live assessment or inaccessible attachment has been reproduced. External source links remain in the research inventory rather than the article body.