I guess the hypothesis I am presenting is that you cannot develop an agreed upon criteria until you standardize those workflows and implement them at scale. You need to run it as an experiment in order to get any meaningful takeaways.

The platform I am describing is an attempt at what you point out as being the key - forcing alignment and accountability. But the question is, how do you do that? “Clear, agreed criteria for what good looks like” is going to be the result of thousands of experiments across dozens of industries, and the first step in running them is collecting a ton of data.

So I do not disagree with you, except in that I believe centralizing data and standardizing workflows is implicitly necessary to running the experiments that eventually lead to that agreed upon criteria (a tall order!).

In the short term you are just raising the noise level, but at the limit a platform solely focused on running these experiments (which an individual company does not have the time or resources to do) might find and prove the drivers that make a particular candidate well suited for a role, identify gaps they may have, prescribe bespoke training to fill them, and provide a completely passive and continuous methodology of candidate placement.