On your ego, I;m just guessing. It's a common failing.
Broadly you seem to be recruiting a bit too close to the ground, to be straining over gnats and forgetting elephants. E.g., my best work in concurrency was at the Watson lab in Yorktown Heights. We had NO trouble hiring people with lots of smarts, knowledge, talents, and determination. When I interviewed people, I asked more general questions. So for concurrency, ask about some really solid topics in the field.
You gave a URL on your terminology: I still don't think that the terminology is both solid and common enough to use in an interview. Indeed, I would guess that a real expert in concurrency, e.g., a recent CS Ph.D. who did their research in the field, would not use such terminology. What a Dijkstra semaphore is is solid. So, might ask about that. I don't think your terminology is good for recruiting real expertise.
Broadly you seem to be recruiting a bit too close to the ground, to be straining over gnats and forgetting elephants. E.g., my best work in concurrency was at the Watson lab in Yorktown Heights. We had NO trouble hiring people with lots of smarts, knowledge, talents, and determination. When I interviewed people, I asked more general questions. So for concurrency, ask about some really solid topics in the field.
You gave a URL on your terminology: I still don't think that the terminology is both solid and common enough to use in an interview. Indeed, I would guess that a real expert in concurrency, e.g., a recent CS Ph.D. who did their research in the field, would not use such terminology. What a Dijkstra semaphore is is solid. So, might ask about that. I don't think your terminology is good for recruiting real expertise.