Let the candidate lead the conversation. People love being listened to. Where they take it is way more revealing about them than any fixed interview grid. And they leave the interview with a smile because all they had to do is be themselves.
I don't see how one could be sued for discrimination based on information that people reveal of their own will.
From a human side, I would hire someone who decides to take care of their kid after hours instead of honing their technical skills. They tend to be a lot more responsible with their work too.
They can do this because their prestige ensures a near limitless supply of candidates willing to jump through those hoops.
At it's best we tended to reject too many great candidates because our rubrics were so rigid, and it didn't let us make room for folks that were clearly amazing but didn't answer the questions in just the right way. Seriously, the talent we passed over was truly world class.
There's a lot to be said for all of the non-verbal and subtle information that's conveyed in an interview. I think that throwing that all away is foolish because you're not really doing much better at removing the bias anyway.
Wouldn't it make more sense to consider the fastest growing companies, or perhaps the subset of fast growing companies with the most profit per employee?