I'm pretty sure there's no correlation whatsoever, after interviewing more than 500 people in a decade...
The correlation that I think _does_ exist is for _junior engineers_: Live coding interviews (particularly if you take typical CS problems) measures how much they're able to memorize and how much attention they paid in class (or in preparation). Which used to be a necessary requirement back in 2001, since it directly correlated to being able to learn by memorization. Unsure that's still a relevant skill since Google > Stack Overflow > ChatGPT, however...
I suppose if by "outside their comfort zone," you mean in a potentially literal life or death situation (because, face it, most people can't live long without a job in the US), under an arbitrary and very short deadline, possibly using unfamiliar tools, and simultaneously having to explain every little thing they do, then yes, I would agree with this. I don't believe the sentence after this follows logically from it, though.
If interview feels like life and death, maybe you are not the right hire.
If you don't understand how not having a job in a place like the US is life or death, you're not the right interviewer.
* In the US * Interviewee is currently unemployed
Even then, the general candidate we interview for Tech positions can usually survive quite well on a couple months.
Yeah that's why veterans have such a great time adapting to peaceful life :)
A good employer takes care of their worker even if they have problems, but they also want to weed out as much of them before hiring. The value of worker is not revealed when they are at their best. Fragile workers with anxiety perform well only small amount of time.
Live interviews are generally excellent at revealing how individuals perform when placed outside their comfort zone. If you perform well in a live interview, be it for coding or any other skill, you are likely to perform even better reality.