If a candidate actually had any of those attributes, never mind all seven, they wouldn't be interviewing at your company. Companies need to realize 99% of candidates are B players, and 99% of their own employees are too.
Interviews are not standardized tests. They are closer to a date/sale, than they are to a test. Same answer in an interview is likely to be interpreted differently by different people, very much like you're on a date.
The more you think of interviews like a test, the more you'll agonize about it, and the more you'll feel writing and believing such gospel-ic articles like this. True, there are a few basic common things, but beyond that, it's subjective by definition.
Whoever YOU think fits your values and ideas, is an A player. Everyone else is "B", because they are not exactly "compatible" to your thinking.
At http://InterviewKickstart.com, that's what we find. Every company has a different viewpoint of what a great engineer is. After a generic training for interviews, it's about compatibility with the companies.
Suffice it to say that there were some hurt feelings when the contract actually started and I saw how they were actually doing their work. If I knew then what I know now I would have continued looking.
Would you prefer to work with a genius engineer who is an asshole to deal with or someone with a great personality who takes somewhat longer to learn?