Which means it doesn't matter how talented I think the person is, HR simply isn't going to give them the job.
Which means your company has it's hiring process and priorities messed up such that you are not able to hire the best candidate in your judgement, unless you too think grammar should be a prescreened show stopper. HR should have 'veto' on legal things like background checks, immigration status, valid drivers licence, maybe even credit check, but to allow them to pre-screen candidates based on resume grammar is just giving your competition a leg up.
I too was involved in a lot of candidate interviews as team leader of hiring for electronics technical positions in a large oil refinery. HR did have first shot at eliminating candidates, but their mandate was just for legal requirements and that basic job requirements were met, with no judgement based on resume content, that was in our mandate along with the candidate interview. In the last session I lead we had over 700 applicants apply for the positions being offered.
We too designed about six 'open ended' questions that made the candidates verbally explain their thought process to work through problems and I believe it did a good job of separating the wannabes from the been there done that types. We were hiring for experienced people so I imagine that if would be somewhat more difficult selecting from only recent graduates with minimum prior employment experience. The last round I lead we had to give 30 interviews over five days and 'force rank' them for our higher management (not HR management) to select how many they wished to hire from the list. They hired 12 of them and five years later 8 of them had been promoted to supervisory positions so I think our process was well designed and executed.
Lefty