Again, that's not the reverse of the logic here.
> This has been tested over and over again... for instance, it is the reason why IQ tests are de facto illegal to use for hiring.
IQ tests are neither de facto nor de jure illegal for hiring; they are used in hiring for a number of jobs, and have survived legal challenges in several of those uses.
> Yes, but again, de facto it's not safe to use things that would be discriminatory as even part of the hiring process if it were going the other direction.
Sure it is. Lots of individual components of company's funnels are discriminatory in "the other direction" taken separately.
Person-to-person contact from a manager to a particular potential candidate letting them know of an opening is a frequent component of a companies recruiting system (obviously not the sole component!) and it frequently does discriminate, because of the way human social circles work, in favor of whatever groups are already overrepresented at that firm. Yet its pretty clearly not illegal in practice to have that be part of the hiring system.
This has been tested over and over again... for instance, it is the reason why IQ tests are de facto illegal to use for hiring. (There's some good reason to believe that it could conceivably be used safely, but most people just aren't willing to take the risk for what gain you might get.)
So, yes, it's been tested a ton. You can not "discriminate" by using standards that just happen to discriminate but you can "plausibly deny" any discriminatory intent. The reasons why you're doing it don't matter much to the courts.
"which isn't being marketed as a sole funnel for companies, and companies would be pretty clearly breaking the law in most cases were they to use it that way."
Yes, but again, de facto it's not safe to use things that would be discriminatory as even part of the hiring process if it were going the other direction. It seems like you're opening a dangerous door to even have something like this in your pipeline, where a rejected candidate could sue and then start arguing about how some balance or other was not precisely correctly maintained.
And remember, this isn't just about "white males" suing either... right now Jopwell explicitly mentioned the minorities they're going to start with... how would you like defending against a suit raised by a minority not in that set?