Horrible experience with technical Issues during CKA Exam

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the technical issues I encountered during my recent Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) exam, specifically related to the PSI Secure Browser.

During the final stages of the exam, around 20 minutes remained when a persistent pop-up screen issue arose, accompanied by severe unresponsiveness of both the keyboard and mouse. Despite the proctor's attempts to inquire about the issue via chat, I was unable to type anything into the chat window for nearly 7 minutes due to the unresponsive input devices. By the time the proctor paused the exam and invited a technical support specialist to the chat, the keyboard and mouse had begun functioning properly again.

Following the technical support intervention, the exam resumed, but over 15 minutes had already elapsed, leaving only 3 minutes remaining. Despite my requests for the exam to be paused and for an extension of time, these requests were not accommodated. I am incredibly frustrated and bewildered by the whole situation.

Despite the convenience promised by the remote examination format, I found the overall process and examination software to be highly unstable, hindering my ability to focus on the exam. The proctor and support engineer were unable to provide substantial assistance beyond offering apologies. Even when the technical issues arose, and the proctor was aware of the situation, I was informed that there was nothing that could help.

It appears that the proctor's role is solely to oversee the exam, while technical issues are supposed to be handled by PSI support engineers. However, neither the proctor nor the PSI support engineer provided any solutions or alternatives to address the issues encountered during the exam. Despite being directed to contact the Linux Foundation for assistance, my support ticket remains in an unassigned status, unresolved.

The Linux Foundation, despite advocating for open-source principles, is paradoxically charging more than double the price compared to other certifications administered by other companies, while maintaining a low-cost remote testing system that results in a poor user experience. Despite being aware of frequent technical issues occurring during exams, the rationale behind persisting with this system remains unclear. It is imperative to reassess this approach and consider reducing the price to half of its current level, while also offering the option for candidates to take exams at testing centers, similar to other certifications.

It seems that in a few days, I may receive instructions for retaking the test through the ticket I raised. However, it appears that neither my time, effort, nor my negative experience will be compensated. Why should individuals who pay hefty fees and invest their time have to tolerate all this inconvenience? I am totally disappointed with the irresponsible and careless examination system and the inadequate response to the issues encountered. While I will proceed with the exam I've already paid for, I never want to go through such an unpleasant experience again.