This comment is exactly why reading about "interview gymnastics" like this really pisses me off.
Its also why I wonder how many big tech companies are somehow able to hire so many people... With processes like these, you'd think that they either have a "secret backdoor" or never managed to actually hire more than a dozen or so.
Google has a completely broken interview process, to the point where they pretty much brag about how ridiculous their false negative rate is, but they make up for it on volume. When people will throw themselves at you two or three times in hope of getting that lucky set of algorithm wankery questions that they can answer, then you will keep interviewing like that.
If true, hiring based on luck seems broken to me. Like the joke of the hiring manager throwing away half the resumes and not hiring "unlucky" people.
With small companies, it often comes down to "were you charming enough?" They won't admit it, but it's a clear subconscious bias.