But in which direction? =) Is it an outlier because of luck, or because my approach is different? While I've certainly had my share of luck, I fundamentally approach this stuff as a human problem, and I think that's a difference of kind that matters.

You've only been rejected twice out of 155 attempts due to technical lack of fit. Most people I know in tech have read the Carnegie book, etc., and put tons of effort into the human and communication side, that's super common. But they experience a far greater rate of rejection for a claimed lack of tech fit, usually centered on highly specific prior knowledge in that one firm's tech stack.

It's borderline unbelievable that any person would happen to have the right tech skill set for about 153/155 jobs, so either the data you collected doesn't reflect the real reasons why you didn't get some opportunities, or else you are a massive outlier in terms of your qualifications. Either way, your data doesn't seem generally applicable.