It seems a bit disingenuous to accuse them of openly disagreeing - if you assume that the client company's interview is optimized for finding folks who will perform well on the job and Triplebyte's process matches you to the employers who are most likely to hire you, the statements are perfectly consistent. Of those two assumptions the latter seems demonstrably true, while the former is obviously a bit suspect. I don't think Triplebyte is in a good position to change it right now, but maybe some day they will get enough actual performance data to start influencing it.
Given their existing positioning of "the interview process is broken and we're here to fix it", I see no reason to credit them with the opinion that client company interviews are optimized for finding people who will perform well. There is no way to reconcile "the current interview process is broken" with "our goal is to find people who do well under the current interview process".
"The current interview process is broken because strong candidates are excluded due to weak resumes and companies and candidates do a terrible amount of duplicative work just to confirm a candidate is baseline competent."
Assuming that, would you accept the position to be consistent?
