[smugglerFlynn]

> we have to replace them with something that works

We don't. The simple solution is to stop maintaining the illusion that 100% perfect hire is possible.

Design your post-hire process around imperfect hiring rate / quick feedback loop, and accept the losses (they will happen anyway despite any perfectionistic illusions you choose to maintain).

These are few questions that really matter:

   - Is there a track record of delivering meaningful results?
   - Does their past experience seem credible?
   - Are their soft skills and communication skills up to your expectations?
   - Do they demonstrate adequate hard skills for the role?
   - What interests and motivates them on professional and personal level?

Your interview process will always be just an attempt at answering these somewhat accurately, with diminishing returns after a certain point. Getting actual accurate answer to these is only possible through collaborative work in real environment.

[vidarh]

I was about to suggest the problem with that is that applicants may think they meet your standards, and then be fired, but then realised that of course that very few coding interviews measure their skills to a sufficient standard to prevent that anyway.

[Paul-Craft]

I'm gonna stop you right here, because I never said any such thing:

> We don't. The simple solution is to stop maintaining the illusion that 100% perfect hire is possible.