The thing is: The method described in the post has the same problem. It just doesn't look like it. Most of these types of interview templates are designed by one or two persons and then blindly applied. Sometimes you have a view modifications, but for the most part it's fixed.

Since every interviewee gets the same set people then start to think this is more scientific than "gut feeling" - it is not, but instead of your own biases you have the biases of the template designer.

There are probably a few companies which extensively study if their interview process for the people hired (the only subset they have access to, which already is a problem) actually matches their job performance and then try to readjust the process, but it doesn't seem to happen very often.

This also gets us back to the old problem that we have no idea what a good programmer is or how to evaluate job performance.