I don't understand the article. First it says "thousands of public servants have been told to pick recruits who have had all mention of their gender and ethnic

I don't understand the article. First it says "thousands of public servants have been told to pick recruits who have had all mention of their gender and ethnic background stripped from their CVs." But then it says "adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a link to a full study? Did someone manage to reproduce this study elsewhere? Also, there's this fragment: "Last year, the Australia Bureau of Statistics doubled its proportion of female bosses by using blind recruitment. Professor Hiscox said he discussed the trial with the ABS and did not consider it a rigorous or randomised control trial." Isn't it too harsh? Does that mean all of the real-world case studies should go to the bin because the organizations didn't have randomized control trials at every step of their operations?