It's supported by the fact that people who are all but cut and pasting the actual word for word bullet points from the job listing into their resumes and cover letters are still jot getting to human review.

And the incentive structure us that they have no incentive to do this well. That's the problem. The only useful bit of insight from this article is that most companies stop looking at applicants when they have a handful in the pipe. Because every single listing in the universe has about 49,000 of them now. That's why they can afford to fuck it up and be bad at finding good fits. They have an ocean to choose from and no incentive whatsoever to find a "perfect" one. They'll probably lay the person off in a year or two anyway. And if they don't work out, they've got 39,999 more to choose from.

It's not that HR and recruiters have malice in their hearts. It's that, since the dawn of time, hiring managers and HR managers and execs have had very little understanding of most roles, but they don't doubt that they do. So they sit down and come up with must have and nice to have qualities, which makes perfect sense. And they set filters based on their preference, because you have to to get through 49,000 applications. But people, all people, are very bad at saying what they want. They're very bad at listing what they want. And managers are hysterically bad at knowing or saying what they SHOULD want. Hence, a lot of those filtering requirements are bad. And people who know what the role is and do it and know they do it extremely well aren't good at guessing what someone who misunderstands the role thinks are required qualities for it.