[taberiand]

If good candidates are being rejected, that harms the company more than the candidate. Presumably someone is getting hired, presumably someone less qualified than the erroneously rejected candidate? And presumably that rejected candidate is applying to other companies, including competitors - the result being the company that doesn't use those faulty tools will get a better candidate with less negotiation power.

Seems like an issue that will work itself out to a certain extent.

[Towaway69]

I began to wonder how the BBC or the authors even know that the best candidate was rejected? Sure they have several individual examples but they don't have any solid numbers - or I missed something.

So what does it actually mean "best candidate" as you point out. Perhaps the best candidate would have gotten bored with the position and have left to do their own thing while the "right candidate" stays and becomes a solid part of the company.