I've interviewed three times in the last five or so years there, and I don't get the feeling the depth is as claimed in the article. Perhaps, it's also the interviewers not implementing it as intended.

If these points were indeed important, I'd expect feedback addressing them. All feedback I received was about doing well or not well on certain questions. No meta whatsoever.

I didn't make it for good reasons, but I feel there is a big chance part. I had one onsite interviewer in the first round who was difficult to deal with. He presented a problem I've never seen in my life, nothing close. He interrupted and gave hints in directions that didn't make sense to me, and didn't give me 5 minutes to think without him talking. The second attempt was fair. In the third, the first phone screen's interviewer was constantly typing on his keyboard while I talked, and it was so loud. No real conversation happening. He was just staring in his screen clacking away. I addressed it, but he kept typing loudly while I was talking. So annoying.

On the other hand, the recruiters were always very good.

At another company recruiting was a mess, and only knowing someone inside helped dealing with that, but the interviews were all great.