Generally speaking, I’ve long thought the resume format is broken in itself.

Generally speaking, I’ve long thought the resume format is broken in itself. And it says almost nothing about a person. What am I getting at?
So, what I’m getting at is that the central point in a resume is usually the company name where the person worked and the time they spent there. The “successes” section—we all hopefully understand it’s worth nothing, because nobody ever checks it, and it’s not even clear how you’d check it (well, except maybe the hardskills tied to it). And everyone, like, clings to some условный Google, Meta, Stanford etc. The whole logic is “well if he passed their screening, then he’s a top specialist.” Even though their screening is a set of template tasks, at the scale they’re running now.
I’d look at something else. Namely, the people this person worked with. Who was their lead or who ran the team, what that person did and who else they worked with. Seems to me the foundation of learning and progress depends on the people around you. So for everyone looking for growth—don’t chase the logos of new funded startups, chase the people you’d actually want to work with. It’s people who shape your understanding of what success is and how to achieve it; it’s people who can give you freedom of will and decisions, or take it away. Not the company name or its profit.