The interviewee's goal is to be evaluated inaccurately.

If you really need an example, then look at it this way:

1. The interviewee's goal is to be hired.

2. Assuming there is no conflict of goals, then the interviewer's goal is to hire the interviewee.

3. This immediately implies that the interview is a pure waste of time. You can just make the hire without having the interview.

If you don't believe that interviews are -- in every case -- nothing but a waste of time, then you must reject one of the two premises. You either believe that (1) The interviewee does not wish to be hired, or (2) there is a conflict between the interviewee's goals and the interviewer's goals.

We can make a similar observation purely by knowing that interviewers sometimes reject interviewees.

Only if the interviewee doesn't think they should be hired.

I think a better way to think of this is:

1. The interviewer's goal is to hire somebody that will provide value at the company, using the hiring criteria as a way of judging it.

2. The interviewee's goal is to get an offer at a company that makes sense for their career goals.

These aren't necessarily adversarial.

> Only if the interviewee doesn't think they should be hired.

Nope. The interviewee would always like to be evaluated as better than they actually are, regardless of whether they meet the notional hiring threshold.

> These aren't necessarily adversarial.

The goals you list are still necessarily adversarial, because the interviewee's goal is always to get an offer and the interviewer's goal is to stymie them.

More specifically: the interviewer's goal is to minimize (1) false positives and (2) the expenditure of the company's resources.

Meanwhile, candidates hope to be evaluated "fairly", which is in direct conflict with criterion (1). They also naively expected to be treated "decently", which is in direct conflict with criterion (2) and which explains why employer-side ghosting is so widespread, along with other abusive practices like piling on lengthy take-homes, etc.

I don't think concerns about resource expenditure actually explain ghosting. I think that happens despite what the company would prefer, because the people involved find it unpleasant to notify candidates of a rejection.

Lengthy take-homes are easier to explain by reference to resource concerns.

Minimizing false positives is not a fundamental goal of interviewing -- accuracy is a goal in all settings, while minimizing false positives isn't. But minimizing resource expenditures is; you're right about that.

"Unpleasant" to send a standard form letter? I don't buy that.

I do agree though that it's what they prefer. As a reflection of how they are, and how they look at people.