So at a big tech company, you're saying that a technical manager has never spoken to an interviewing team? That these kinds of questions materialized from thin air without any sort of technical oversight.
In the small company case you're saying if there was only one employee, looking to hire you as the second employee. There is no correlation between the one person you work with and the asinine questions you were asked in the interview?
Again I think the point was you are correct that it must be taken with a grain of salt, but to say there is "no correlation" is false. There is no way to prove the impossibility of a situation.
The point of language is to convey a shared concept, is that what you are doing? It seems like we already achieved that, which word choice would you prefer over “no correlation” to convey the same concept that there is not a useful signal to glean from an industry standard interview process
What word choice would we prefer? "Some". As in, "there is some correlation".
The issue isn't word choice. The words express what you're trying to say perfectly well. The issue is that we think you are wrong. Simply choosing different words isn't going to fix that.
In the small company case you're saying if there was only one employee, looking to hire you as the second employee. There is no correlation between the one person you work with and the asinine questions you were asked in the interview?
Again I think the point was you are correct that it must be taken with a grain of salt, but to say there is "no correlation" is false. There is no way to prove the impossibility of a situation.