[vinay_ys]

At every company I worked at, each interviewer would have gone through training to do interviews, write feedback, participate in debriefs and actually do those things in a timely fashion. Senior people would have participated/chaired in semi-formal or more-formal hiring committees and helped make hire/no-hire decisions. And the hiring tools we used showed if the candidate has applied earlier for same/different roles, and did interviews and what were the feedback earlier. There would also internal confidential ref-checks based on overlap in candidate's work history with anyone at the company currently. If the candidate was rejected at any stage, the recruiter is informed and they have access to almost all of these data in the same tool. And they are expected to communicate that back to the candidate. And there is a feedback tool for the candidate to rate the whole experience and this feedback is analyzed carefully, and processes tweaked accordingly, especially if the company is growing and expected to continue to grow for a while.

In companies that had to do aggressive cost cutting, the recruiters were the first to be impacted. These roles have had high churn and sufficient training and experience quality monitoring may have suffered during this period. That could be the reason why the certain steps in the process involving recruiters (like communicating back to the rejected candidates) may have suffered w.r.t quality of interactions.