Right, I think we're probably in agreement on a lot too. I do think if you're looking for a specific thing (whether it's a code monkey, or a visionary, or someone that seems to have the potential to grow into someone amazing, or a Postgres expert who can help you solve your particular scaling issues right now and then go away) you should try and purpose your interviews for figuring out whether those things are present to sufficient degree, and ignore/deprioritize getting data on other things. Though I also think even with the large variety of roles that exist, they all need an ability to program and solve the types of problems that the business is working on and is likely to encounter, so this should be tested/verified as early as possible, and that a lot of people are fooling themselves in thinking they need much more than that or that the other things they claim to care about actually matter.
Consulting gigs (like the postgres expert) avoid a lot of the crazy interview nonsense, and a large part of that I think is that wanting to trade services for money is more than enough, but sure their limited tenure is another big factor and helps them from needing to buy into the company culture or whatever. But this precludes that the business knows what services they want to receive in exchange for money. And repeating myself, often businesses aren't even sure, or don't actually need much more beyond "can program competently for our use cases" (which doesn't mean code monkey). So much of the extra stuff that retrospectively becomes valuable and maybe even worth trying to find in the interview process is nevertheless so hard to find. Some companies claim to have found ways, e.g. here's tptacek's hiring post: https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/ Quoting the relevant part:
> A few years ago, Matasano couldn’t have hired Alex, because we relied on interviews and resumes to hire. Then we made some changes, and became a machine that spotted and recruited people like Alex: line of business .NET developers at insurance companies who pulled Rails core CVEs out of their first hour looking at the code. Sysadmins who hardware-reversed assembly firmware for phone chipsets. Epiphany: the talent is out there, but you can’t find it on a resume.
You also won't typically find those really bonus qualities on a phone screen. The approach of work-sample tests goes in a rather different direction than what we've been discussing, though it can also get rid of full-round interviews.
On the salary bit, I did say might, because you're right that if the compensation ranges are known upfront, and the candidate finds them too low, then it's typical they will filter themselves out before anything. So if that range is known before the phone screen, you don't really need to bring it up then. For those who don't filter themselves out, then they either don't have a compensation issue, again making it pointless to include in the phone screen time, or they do have an issue to some extent but have reason to try and go through the process anyway. The first reason I listed was because they think they can negotiate high enough beyond the range once they've secured a "we want you" spot, and they might try to further amplify this by mentioning a competing offer(s) from somewhere else. Obviously the greater the gap the less likely they are to actually entertain this, however they still might if they just plan to use you as the 'competing offer' to gain leverage elsewhere. I don't think this sort of thing can be reliably detected at phone screen time, so it's pointless to ask about it, but sure, it doesn't take much time to ask a probe like "are you interviewing elsewhere now?" which might help you be ready for some negotiation games later. But I think you should always be ready for those regardless.
For more depth into one mentality that might do this: there are all sorts of desires someone can have that aren't necessarily abundant in the broader opportunities out there (like specific niche technologies, or specific people you get to call coworkers (there's only one [insert programming idol]), or the product itself (there's only one [insert video game franchise]), or having a preference for non-remote and this being the main/only good opportunity in an unusual place you want to live). So if asked at some point before an offer is extended "is this salary range acceptable?", you might honestly answer "instant yes if it can reach higher by this much, I'll reallllly have to think about it if all I can get is the top of the range, but at the middle or low end it'd definitely be no even though I really want this rare property I can't easily find elsewhere." Such an honest answer is unwise strategically to give, though, precisely because the other side may consider such uncertainty as an immediate deal-breaker, and in the end after learning even more through the process your revealed preferences might lead you to saying yes even at the lower end of the range.