This is some really good advice here.
It's always a good idea to throw out all candidates that can't immediately recall what the first theoretical result of the rest mass of a Higgs boson was in the first paper describing was. Basic knowledge like this just correlates so well with ability to make proper decisions in API architecture.
I'd also save time and money cutting people that read as poorly as you're demonstrating.
Try actually measuring basic knowledge with competency at programming before thinking your opinion is better than measured data. Peer reviewed research finds similar results [1].
And yes, we tested all this carefully before enacting it. Interviews cost time and money, so giving 100% on every candidate despite quick signals is a waste of time and money that would be better spent on other candidates. If you want the best outcome then you allocate scarce resources based on expected returns, not on unfounded beliefs.
