You're only tackling what you gain from your changes, not what you lose. Digging in requires people to spend more time. Most interviews are already massive and

You're only tackling what you gain from your changes, not what you lose. Digging in requires people to spend more time. Most interviews are already massive and exhausting. Candidates in general aren't looking for longer interviews, they are looking for shorter interviews. Your changes propose even longer interviews when the number one complaint is the sheer length and volume of interviews. Most candidates are not amazing at interviewing or figuring out people, let alone when they spend most of their time doing other things at the day/week of interviewing. The majority of candidates are either tired, inexperienced, or both. Increasing the volume of information isn't a strict gain under conditions which are true far too often, and can even be a loss. Lying isn't uncommon, but I'd think twice about whether saying "no" is really that much easier than weaving an elaborate half-truth. At the same time, most candidates will be treading a fine line between not getting on the interviewer's nerves, and figuring out what is actually happening. Navigating social dynamics is difficult for a reason. >it could suggest a few things That's the entire problem. I reckon this is part of the reason why author is so direct in their questions. They don't want to deal with multiple possible answers and spending more time figuring out the answer. They want a 'is this company worth my time' checklist which doesn't take multiple hours to fill. For obvious reasons, that checklist isn't going to work for the majority of people (you named several reasons yourself). But changing the questions isn't going to help reach the intended goal either.