After my (virtual) TB interview (which I barely passed), I had onsites at 5 places. After the five on-site interviews, I had 2 job offers, one of which was a company I wanted to work for since graduating college. I took the other offer.
This was preceded by a four or five month job search. I had received two offers in that time, but nothing seemed great.
I think TB's process kinda worked, but I understand your skepticism.
I'm actually not all that skeptical of TB's approach. They built a real business around it, way more targetted than eg Karat. Even though ultimately unsuccessful, that is surely more due to PMF and various missteps, than to lack of advantage for individual applicants vs spray and pray approach. (When taken as an average across all applicants.)
I'm just highlighting that GP's specific anecdote doesn't really demonstrate that advantage. Your example seems much more clear.
Somewhat OT for this specific sub-thread but I wonder how much "OA" tools that are part of coderpad etc, contributed to TB's demise. These are meant to be fizzbuzz kind of pre-screens. I know TB's approach was more than that, but from the hiring side, was the value not there since you'd always (?) have your own coding exercise after the TB screening.
After my (virtual) TB interview (which I barely passed), I had onsites at 5 places. After the five on-site interviews, I had 2 job offers, one of which was a company I wanted to work for since graduating college. I took the other offer.
This was preceded by a four or five month job search. I had received two offers in that time, but nothing seemed great.
I think TB's process kinda worked, but I understand your skepticism.