Interviewees, however, tend to get flustered if they can't remember the method names. It's another rock on a pile that eventually leads to nervousness collapse, something that happens far too often, so after a few dozen interviews I've started stressing up-front that no, it doesn't matter, I'm not scoring you on that.
That, on its own, produced a measurable increase in average score.
That's pretty vague. I use the same strategy as the sibling post, ratcheting up difficulty until the candidate fails, so I usually have a lot to go on, but the exact criteria end up changing from one interview to the next depending on what the candidate did.
Occasionally I end up with not enough data. I try to give my feedback in the form of a confidence interval, but if it's mediocre candidate combined with not-stellar signal quality... figuring out how to score them can take a while.