you make a couple of good points, regarding sourcing, and hint at compounding effects, which is probably a very deep topic here. I tipped my hand by indicating I was mildly annoyed, and failed to differentiate between perceived positives and negatives in the process. So I will try to fill that in a bit..

Let's start with aptitude/talent of the candidate. Certainly those with aptitude and/or talent might be hidden in the modern floods of resumes. People lie about skills, and supporting "automated investigation" might refute or amplify assertions. People also miss critical elements in describing themselves, so something similar would apply there. Your point that this kind of automation might increase pools of candidates, and thereby making a chance for some people currently overlooked, is consistent with the merit found in the research grant.

Is that the whole story however? Is there a shortage of skilled people doing paid computer activity? It is no secret that wage negotiation is ongoing and will essentially never be solved. Individual people grow and change, especially in the second decade of life. Industry conditions change, especially with web-related work. And, the industry itself is famously seeking bargains. Outsourcing is a constant on the Internet. There are many more people than jobs at any given time, but most people are not great fits or even able to do a job. So.. how to draw some conclusions there, about where "automated investigation and classification of human beings as workers" might fit in.

It is literally true that some large-scale business seeks to make replaceable work roles such that low-skill, low-commitment people can be replaced in large numbers on any given week. Wages and benefits can be cut and sometimes aggressively cut, amidst that churn. Is there a shortage of college-educated adults who are willing to participate as "churn" elements, also known as gig-work? Perhaps, but for stable social lives, reliable income, stability to raise a family, retirement and medical benefits, gig-work acts like a chemical solvent, literally dissolving the bonds, seniority and commitments needed for longer term stability to grow. More comments about wage working in the USA and elsewhere could be made, but overall this part would fit into the "uses of the technology" side, not the technology itself per se.

Another angle worth mentioning is the difference between developing skills in a workplace over time, creating the environment that sustains skill development, and seeing the benefits of skill development return to the skill holder, rather than the corporation. This worker-side of worklife historically overlaps mentors, ranking, seniority and self-determination of the skill holder. Almost none of the "automated investigation" lends itself to this side, at first appraisel. If there is someone who has unfound skills in rigorous or rare aptitudes, there would be some context to that since it takes time to grow stronger. That sort of thing would almost certainly be included in a resume.

Overall, I claim that the "automated investigation" of employee aptitude strongly aids a "race to the bottom" of lowest wage for highest skill, and does almost nothing to build and retain skill over time by the skill holder. My reason for being "mildly annoyed" probably has more to do with systematically declining to engage mid-level skilled workers in mid-life in mid- to high-cost of living societies, and not so much to do with finding and engaging people who are overlooked by the current system. Since I do not have the problem of thousands of over-stated resumes for ordinary roles to filter through, the filtering side of "refuting false claims on resumes" is not a problem for me, though this technology is certainly primed for that.