> I'm guessing colocation was an added bonus because it is a bit easier.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this:

My opinion is that if there's a preference for a co-located candidate, that simply means their processes are not built to put a remote candidate on equal footing.

Hence the preference.

The fact that they have remote workers does not invalidate the fact that those remote workers are at a disadvantage.

> I think my largest concern was the sustainability of my rate for them in the long term being a small outfit

This is one more red flag: companies that have to work remotely because they have to not because they want to.

There is a world of difference between a company that had to settle for remote work just because they could not afford to hire locally from a company that was built remote first because the founders believed in remote work.

The former will always be on the lookout for local candidates, forever deprioritizing remote workers while the latter don't have any such discrimination in mind.

I am glad it turned out well for you in the short term. Maybe you can follow up on how their remote workers are currently doing.

In this case what was communicated to me was their intention to embrace more remote work.

Part of my fee and role was the decision to have me head up initiating and experimenting with remote work procedures and practices for the team.

Sometimes what comes is little more than circumstantial.