I read your post and this comment as arguing for resumes to focus on achievements ("this awesome thing is my fault") rather than tasks ("I did thing X as a means to an end while in role Y"). Is that a fair summary?

If so, I think you're off the mark a bit when you say this applies only to startups; I think this applies when you are applying to specific roles at a company, regardless of the company's size. I don't work at a startup at all, but resumes with lists of papers with no direct relevance where the candidate is one of 10 co-authors, academic honors, TA positions that are irrelevant to the job at hand, lots of description about a former team's job rather than what the candidate did, etc. make my brain glaze over. I have to spend more time looking for the core nuggets of achievement buried within, and that's generally not time I have. It's not necessarily a killer for someone's interview process, but it's certainly not fun and drains my time.

Meanwhile, people I encounter outside of the normal resume-submission process who simply point out something really cool they've done? If it's something really awesome, they get recruited, no real resume required.