This is recruiter vs creative interviewee who just doesn't get the puzzle. There isn't anything that screams "Feynman" here.
* There is a difference between the name of the thing and what it does (very much his style).
* When bureaucracy is disconnected from physical reality (alluding to the Challenger incident).
* When a blisteringly intelligent person can just get it right by thinking from first principles (dude was wicked smart).
Which is why the original article cited [0] worked so well. Feynman's name was being invoked for someone who immediately and insightfully tore the pro-forma question apart as having a faulty premise where the name of the thing didn't imply it was round. It is still words in his mouth, but that is on character for Feynman stereotypes.
Throwing out lots of ideas that don't quite work isn't really a good time to invoke the name.
While the constraints in this puzzle are artificial, from what I've read of Feynman, it seems more likely he would engage with it and welcome the constraints.
I do like the part about asking the details of the electrical system's wiring though. That part is spot on.
https://blog.eutopian.io/documenting-breaches-with-h-diagram...
