> I'm trying to fix the part that's already broken.

The broken part appears to be that somebody spends 20 minutes screening a candidate rather than 5 minutes reviewing an AI summary of the screen. Inefficient, maybe.

Why does this actually get rid of the alternatives? You've reduced the active time to screen a candidate by 75%. But a CV filter reduces it by 95%. Why would your system involve less prep than HackerRank? It is still a test with a critical outcome. The idea that if only we didn't ask algorithmic questions that nobody would spend time rehearsing for interviews is ridiculous.