Die Bewerbungsschreiber

We are sincerely sorry for your experience with our service.

Still, there is a counter perspective to your arguments, which we have conveyed previously. Please allow us to respond in specific, but also in broader terms to your outlined criticism.

To begin with the broader part, we are fully aware that we are not technical experts in our customers' fields of work – something we communicate clearly. Our expertise lies in phrasing and designing application documents aligned with current job market requirements while fully showcasing client qualifications and experiences. Therefore, we rely on close exchange and dialogue. Even if we were technical experts, we couldn't match a client's understanding of their job purely from provided input.

With this in mind, we explicitly integrate a dedicated review cycle to address potential technical and weighting issues. As you might remember, you utilized this mechanism without communicating your seemingly deep-seated disappointment. Your uploaded feedback included several reasonable changes. These changes mainly stemmed from personal preference and did not mention the fundamental claims you are raising in your rating.

Only following delivery of our updated version, you voiced dissent and demanded a cancellation. The reasoning given in that context mirrors the criticism in your rating closely. Still, even within the at this point already updated documents, these criticisms had already been addressed and rectified.

Building on goodwill and fair business practices, which we hold in high esteem, we still offered to continue working on your documents beyond the contractually obliged review cycle. You did not respond to this.

To address your points in particular:

1) This is a point of contention and preference. Due to your wishes, our updated delivery was styled in the Simple Past. Especially in a German/Continental European context, however, we usually advise the continuous form ("-ing"). Semantically, it is closer to the nominalization used in German. Given the continuous meaning of the tense, utilizing present/past progressive neither constitutes a violation of English grammar.

2) To reiterate, the client is the technical expert. Matters such as this are prime applications for the review cycle. Additionally, given the full editability of our documents, you can always adapt them according to your wishes.

3) In this point (if we understand it correctly), you assert that layered bullet points are unusual and not advisable. We must disagree here. Our years of experience suggest a radically different position.

4) Some of the changes you mentioned were judgment calls, some were done to optimize readability by applicant tracking systems (ATS). Of course, given that technical expertise lies with the client, we would have gladly implemented your requested changes within the scope of our review cycle had you requested so. In general, our application documents are editable with Microsoft Word to enable, facilitate, and encourage changes for future job applications in a few simple steps.

5) Your criticism was addressed during the review cycle. As a side note, the price for your order was 169 euros – not 199 euros, as you claim.

Subsequently, we regret that we could not provide you with a service aligned to your wishes. However, our record, evidenced in the plethora of positive reviews from all professional fields such as STEM, academia, etc., does not support your conclusions about our qualifications.