Just for context it seems the above user works at Google based on previous comments.
The idea that Google has internal research indicating this wouldn't be surprising to me.
The idea that Google has internal research indicating this wouldn't be surprising to me.
The problem with internal research on these matters is the nearly total lack of negative examples. Depending on the quality of the pre-on-site screening the quality of candidates at that point might be so high that random selection might be just as good.
I think the biggest issue with the current approach among faang interviews is that a lot of really good people get filtered out (false negative) - but faang get so many applications that they are ok with this.
Scare quotes used because knowing how to define success is an even more hairy question that we (industry, humans) dont have a good grasp on either. So any criteria you use might be wrong or a subset of the right (where "wrong" means you would change your conclusion if you saw the bigger picture, which none of us can.)