I think it would absolutely help. The point I was trying to make was that the system we have in place now is unfair and not really worth pursuing, because it answers neither security questions nor any actual questions about the applicant. A procedurally fair and useful system would require a much closer examination of the application. And if there were concerns, under the conditions of procedural fairness, that system should include an interview in order to give the applicant a chance to refute or to satisfy whatever concerns the officer had. That is an incredibly expensive and cumbersome system, so what we have is a compromise that really doesn't satisfy any of our requirements.
On March 1st, 2012. See this statement in context.