i think the point the article was trying to make is that good enough is a much more quantifiable metric and randomization after that is better at minimizing bia

i think the point the article was trying to make is that good enough is a much more quantifiable metric and randomization after that is better at minimizing bias from those who select who is "special." I think of it more like, everyone with a 1500 sat go into a hat, and we pick 20 randomly, rather than lets put everyone with a sat score of 1000 in a hat because that is "good enough."