> so we ignored our best indications of candidate performance Judging from the number of "tech hiring process is broken" posts I see on HN, it seems pretty dub

> so we ignored our best indications of candidate performance Judging from the number of "tech hiring process is broken" posts I see on HN, it seems pretty dubious to claim that existing indicators of candidate performance are actually measuring what they claim to be. So, if you look at the situation from that point of view, then there's no reason to elevate existing metrics to anything higher than "meh, maybe it's measuring something."