Thank you for clarifying.OK, I can see that you're referring to me. But, that's not really the point I was trying to make.
What I was trying to say, is that tailoring your answers (and getting them reviewed) will only take you so far. There are other aspects of your application which are equally, if not more, important. And, from my observations, applicants who are stronger all-rounders tend to get further despite obvious flaws in their application answers.
If I could show you what my friend wrote without identifying myself, I would. For a bit more context, his applications simply mentioned PE being a firm's strength, and then he copy/pasted an explanation about why he (given his experience) would thrive at that firm.
The most important takeaway here (for me) was that the age-old advice from graduate recruitment, that your answer must be "unique" (in the sense of not being applicable to another firm), is clearly untrue by looking at his answers. For each of them, you could have plugged in the name of another small-intake US firm specialising in PE and it would have been equally as valid.
I think what you said here also shows what sorts of firms care about what. US firms are known to care about credentials a lot, hence their really high entry requirements to begin with. Maybe your friend just looked really good on paper that they did not care. Great for your friend, sucks for everyone else trying really hard though.