There's only a very, very small difference between those two things though. I'm not hiring anyone based on either of those bulletpoints or similar ones; no matter how many there are.

It's so easy to inflate your role on a project and what you contributed and the people who are best at it are usually also able to talk, talk, talk.

The first interview question I ask is so easy that I don't think anyone should be paid to write software anywhere if they can't solve it. And yet, I have candidates with plenty of nice bulletpoints like your second one on their resume who can't solve it or take 30-45 minutes to solve it. Good candidates take less than 10 minutes, very good ones take less than 5.

Ah, you've got a gotcha bullet point question that you think is a killer technical ability question. But you're asking it in a completely abnormal situation, an interview. All you're testing for is the candidate's ability to answer your clever question in a scenario where their ability and personal value is actively being judged; which is wholly unlike any day-to-day challenge they are to encounter.

The question is not a gotcha. It is not trivia. It is not even a "killer technical ability" question. It's a question I considered not including because I thought it was too easy. Folks I've interviewed proved me wrong and I've come to realize that when I get any signal from it, it's the best question I ask.

If you know what a hash map or dictionary is then you can solve it. If you can't answer a problem because you're under pressure then that's a no hire signal on its own.