The headline is "interview performance is kind of arbitrary," but the data solution proposed in the article is "interviewers rate interviewees in a few different dimensions," which is not any less arbitrary.

I appreciate there is an appendix addressing this issue, but it does not absolve the issues the analysis, especially since the appendix uses a "Versus Rating" to justify the statistical accuracy of the system, which is also calculated somewhat arbitrarily (since the Versus Rating is derived from the calculated interview score, wouldn't it be expected that the two have a relationship?)

The fact that the results of the non-arbitrary score are centralized around 3 out of a 4 max (instead of the midpoint of 2) implies a potential flaw or bias in the scale criteria. (The post notes that people who get a 3 typically move forward; maybe selection bias is in play since companies would not interview unskilled people in the first place)

That's not to say that the statistical techniques in the analysis themselves are unimpressive though. I particularly like the use of FontAwesome icons with Plot.ly.