Standardized process doesn't have to mean a purely checklist-based rubric. Triplebyte wasn't - and Otherbranch especially isn't - devoted to the idea that a goo

Standardized process doesn't have to mean a purely checklist-based rubric. Triplebyte wasn't - and Otherbranch especially isn't - devoted to the idea that a good engineer can be reduced to checkboxes. And speaking for myself as a founder, I in particular believe very strongly in the idea of intangibles as important criteria. Having a standard process makes intangibles easier to detect, not harder, because you can look for those ethereal little bits of signal against a familiar backdrop. The last question on the grading form for our interviewers is, to quote it exactly in its current form: ----- Full interview overall score (Would you vouch for this person's skills?) * No no no no no * Some redeeming qualities but not someone you'd recommend even as a junior hire * Good for a junior role, still a bit short of a senior one * Would recommend for a senior role * Incredible, get this person a job right now ----- That, to me, is the opposite of what you're talking about. Expert opinion is a central part of what we do, and a big part of what I think gives us an advantage over something like an automated coding test. We just take treat expert opinion as a type of data in its own right so that we can, for example, adjust for whether one interviewer grades more harshly on average than another and make sure that it is actually producing valid results down the line.