The trouble with the idea of false negatives in hiring is that you can't really define what they are.

Every job is likely to legitimately reject good candidates.

Most hiring is for a specific position. If you get 10 viable, or even excellent candidates, you can often still only hire one of them.

The one that gets it will take the job in their own direction. Almost by definition, the winning candidate is therefore the best fit.

Whatever roles the other candidates end up in will go in their own directions. Even if, a year on, you can objectively compare the performance of the one you hired against the one you didn't, their performance was within the context of the role they did win. They may not have been as good a fit for the role you didn't offer them.

Yeah this approach doesn't make sense in my experience. The quality of my jobs has not been at all correlated with my opinion of the interviews to get those jobs. I think one of the reasons the system still lumbers along is that it's still a good trade to go through the hazing in order to get a well compensated and challenging job. But I think it's still worth expressing dissatisfaction with the system in hopes of seeing improvements.