[eesmith]

> be able to take a novel problem that they haven't seen before and break it down to solve it in a sensible way. ... A contrived live coding exercise gives you a strong signal on this

The author suggests take-home coding exercises with "maybe ... a live call to discuss their solution" as giving a stronger signal than a live coding exercise.

The author also suggested to "present them with a complex technical problem that requires architecture-level decisions across various parts of a technology stack, and have them talk through how they would approach it" as a better signal than a live coding interviews.

So even if what you say is true, you aren't presenting a devil's advocate position. Instead, it makes it seem like you think the alternative to live coding is no assessment, which the author very clearly argues is not true.