I'm not sure what you mean exactly by, "woo", but I can provide a little bit of context. The most important thing to note is that this has proven only meaningful or useful to me in the context of all the other things I mentioned as well. It doesn't stand on its own, ever.

Mostly it's a framework for how to think about dimensions of the problem in the abstract. It's like "team architecture" analysis. I use the OCEAN trait model. I'm aware of it's limitations (and they are numerous), as well as those of other models and methods. The reason I use it is because it's a simple enough, but still rich enough, model for me to be able to partially apply on-the-fly through casual conversation, etc.

For me it breaks down roughly like:

1. I think about that job that I need done and plan traits that probably map to that job. The kind of expressed traits that surface in a fastidious-finisher are very rarely also the traits that surface in a cowboy-hacker (the coarseness of the caricatures is for illustration only).So there's a sketch that looks like: O-low, C-mid, E-NA, A-mid, N-low or something for any given need.

2. I plan out the set of traits that are mandatory to be expressed (or not expressed) strongly. Like it might be the case that I need someone to be super high on C, but if they're also super high on N, and being high on N is fairly undesirable for the current situation, then that warrants further exploration. The point of this is to try to help prioritize focus on what to assess, how to assess it, reasonable confidence in the assessment, and which dimensions are fine to be really fuzzy.

3. With model priorities in place, when speaking to people there are a lot of ways to prompt, leave empty airspace, and methods of story-telling that facilitate creating safer space for a broader spectrum of interaction than is often expected in a normal hirer-hiree dynamic. These help guide filling in that rudimentary sketch. Talking about almost anything other than the job itself helps with this because it's important to try to establish a peer-like posture. With a lot of practice one can get "okay" at doing this in such a way that it can be a meaningful, but incomplete, weight in the calculus on how to proceed with a candidate as well as the team the candidate would be joining.

4. Lastly, the most important thing to do here from my experience is to bias myself toward constantly trying to rapidly invalidate my model sketch at every possible stage of interaction from the first email exchange all the way up to issuing an offer. This does a few things. It forces me to have constant and active intention in every single step of the process and every single interaction with a person. It keeps me from religiously believing in the modelling itself because it's constantly clear that it's incomplete and fallible. Perhaps most important is that it puts the adversarial focus on myself and my assessment process rather than laying that adversarial relationship on the candidate.

I have to read as much or more about psychology and neuroscience as I do about byzantine fault-detection or applications of formal methods. Hiring can't be an afterthought that we as hiring-managers take lightly or try to relegate to passive tools or industry norms that seem patently ridiculous on their face.

Every "bad hire", every misaligned/unsatisfied employee, and every termination is ultimately the fault of management.