Maybe you're a genius. In any case, your experience is not particularly useful to the rest of us.
Failing behaviorals is also usually a result of poor preparation.
What if — and hear me out on this one — the people passing these interviews consistently understand them better than you do? I know, it's a nigh incomprehensible concept, but if you really struggle with it for a while maybe it will make some sense.
But what do I know, I've never even looked at leetcode so maybe I'm missing some trick to extrapolate from anecdote to data accurately.
I think maybe some people are mistaking job interviews for university exams.
Look, I spent a nontrivial amount of time on study. Was it worth it? Yes, because I was able to achieve my goal. Did it have any relevance whatsoever to my actual performance? None. at. all. I would've done the exact same job as prior to the prep. I also know for 100% that I wouldn't have passed without it. That is why I argue about this process - it doesn't convey any real signal about me as an employee, it's all theater.
What's the definition of "pass"? I've done around 4-5 rounds of these interviews over my career, without prep - Microsoft, Google (several times because I keep thinking they'll give a reasonable offer), and my current company. In exactly none of them did I have all the answers right away. In some of them, I even failed to come up with 'the right answer' in the allotted time. After exactly all of them I got an offer.
I don't think people arguing about these even understand what the goal is; or they fail the behaviorals or whatever and then blame it on "failed" interview questions.