That's what I had in mind! The whole post is a claim that evaluating knowledge work got more expensive because cheaper measures stopped correlating well with quality.

If someone was already evaluating the work output using a metric closer to the underlying quality then it might not have been a big shift for them (other than having much more work to evaluate).

Yes, I agree that this is true!

You could however only do that if you were fine with unfairly judging the quality of work, as you now readily discarded quality work based on superficial proxies. Which admittedly is done in a lot of cases.