I would only assume the other side of this entire conversation, from the recruiters view is that it is also a numbers game. Recruiters are effectively sales jobs just a different contract to close on. Get enough leads and eventually they close.
I'd expect that don't care if the resumes are perfect. There's very little lost for being wrong.
Quality can also become it's own trap as the entire org chases metrics aimed at quality. Soon you have loads of brittle tests that likely aren't adding great assertions but you have code coverage.
Because that doesn't work soon you keep adding layers upon layers to reduce the risk and your time to delivery suffers.
All knobs have consequences and long term they can really compound. The balance of picking quality over features isn't something I've seen done amazing. I'd like to work somewhere that could pull it off.
There's more to life than a job as well. I've stayed at a job for the comfort of not needing to add to my or my families plate while my wife was in grad school. It was absolutely the right choice.
I've also had a job that I left because I wasn't enjoying because of a lack of challenge and lack of management backing for the projects I was working on.
Life isn't purely black and white and my reasoning is pretty simplistic. There are vastly more complex situations than just my wife went to grad school.
Everyone I work with is constantly badmouthing Teams. It's buggy and flakey and they killed Linux support which my company actually made use of. Either way, it doesn't matter since it's bundled. Literally killed any chance of competition getting a fair shake at our usage.
Teams doesn't have to be better, they're just bundled.
I can't imagine why any ISP would do such absurd things when in my experience you're given sufficient resources on your first allocation. My small ISP received a /36 of IPv6 space, I couldn't imagine giving less than a /64 to a customer.
I'd expect that don't care if the resumes are perfect. There's very little lost for being wrong.