>Given that level of rejection, the key here is to get women to know the odds and keep trying.
Now that's an important fact that tends to get overlooked. Ninety-nine percent of the agitation about increasing "representation" tends to focus on accusing everyone of misogyny and attempting to destroy existing culture. But increasing the confidence level of female applicants, so they aren't put off by immediate rejection, could be a much less destructive way of achieving the goal.
Let's be clear here, you need to do that for potential candidates far before the interview.
Otherwise you'd be choosing less confident candidates simply because they are female, that's sexism and unfair to those who aren't being prejudged as low confidence. If you need confident people who can still work after facing "rejection" you'd also be hobbling your organisation.
If I'm a low confidence male then your system is going to stack heavily against me because of my sex.
Now that's an important fact that tends to get overlooked. Ninety-nine percent of the agitation about increasing "representation" tends to focus on accusing everyone of misogyny and attempting to destroy existing culture. But increasing the confidence level of female applicants, so they aren't put off by immediate rejection, could be a much less destructive way of achieving the goal.