Interviewer "fixed effects"
It's vary common to try to evaluate how interviews went in an attempt to figure out how good your chances are of moving on to the next stage. It seems to be a common topic of conversation among candidates. And when I was on the market, my advisors asked me to tell them a lot of details about each interview so they could figure out where I had the best chances. In my view, this is a fool's errand. Here's why: Most of the differences you perceive between interviews are interviewer "fixed effects" that are constant across interviews they perform. That one interviewer who seemed very suspicious of your identification strategy and interrogated you extensively about it probably interrogated a lot of candidates they interviewed about what she thought were the weakest points in each paper. For all you know, she was very happy with how you answered her and has you at the top of the list. That other interviewer who was very positive and upbeat about everything was probabl