None of this proves that you're a good fit, either generally at a company or specifically on a team. Empirically, tech companies where executives and managers were mostly software engineers at one point and are considered best places with best talent almost uniformly have standardized hiring processes with whiteboarding algorithms and what not. Companies run by non-technical MBAs that aren't known for software talent tend to either not give such tests and/or have ad hoc processes where hiring managers hire whoever they want based on what they like. While hard data on hiring processes are difficult to get, I think this puts the burden of proof on those who are adamant that this is not an effective way.

More importantly, you need to look beyond yourself. I'm an old developer and I don't like to be grilled on algorithms either. But my understanding is that it works very well and that no one's ever come up with anything that's better in terms of effectiveness at scale. Giving random hiring managers discretion to hire who they want simply doesn't work if you're a desirable place to work and need some minimal level of competence across the board. What do you think would work any better? This focus on how it feels from your perspective is fine if you all you're trying to say is that it sucks for you personally but ultimately if you're trying to prove that this is a bad process for those who employ it, you need to make a case that there are better, more efficient processes. Every process will lose some qualified people - so that you may have been qualified, but were rejected isn't meaningful evidence against the process.

Btw, appeal to special credentials as a way to criticize standard procedures is an implicit argument that hiring managers should be given discretion to bypass standard procedures to hire special candidates. I've never really seen this go well, at a level below, say, industry pioneers. I do distinctly remember the one time I did that as a manager to hire someone with a rather long series of accomplishments who refused to take coding tests - I had to fire him rather quickly. The interesting part, other than the complete absence of any sort of actual productivity, is that he couldn't work with anyone, was right about everything and his long list of accomplishments was constantly used as a reason why he didn't have to do anything he didn't want to and any rule he didn't want to follow was stupid.

So I don't think standard algorithm tests are that great as a filter, but at the very least, the willingness to go through it communicates some level of willingness to do things you don't like or aren't best at. A huge part of what makes engineers successful isn't the ability to do things they are good at, but the willingness to do things they are not good at.