So your example is exactly opposite the way UW does it. Each member of your interview (three) writes a report separately before talking to the other two. Then they write a group report. The one member that goes to excom, presents all this info together, so a picture of you from technically 4 perspectives is given. If two interviewers disagree strongly, then you are reinvented to interview again. This eliminates any of the issues you brought up.
Secondly, you're putting wayyyy too much into this "zeal for diversity". They aren't choosing diverse people over more qualified people, they are choosing people that fit with their mission, and that they think will add to the class as a whole, and be successful. And of course you can't determine who would get in in advance, thats the whole point of the interview. There isn't X and Y quality they are looking for, this isn't some checklist to be completed. The whole point is even with its huge limit on how much they can figure out about you in a short interview, is to get a "feel" for you.
To be honest, your coming off a sounding privileged, like UW owed you something because you have high stats and did this checklist of things you think you should have done. And personally, I think you're absolutely wrong. You decisions aren't everything, and thats the point. You want people that bring different viewpoints - and it's often those things that I mentioned that provide those. Can you honestly say you know what it's like to grow up as a person of color? What about living in poverty, or being super privileged and rich. These things inherinently add to a class, and allow people to be exposed to things different than they otherwise would. Yes your decisions matter as well, but by your logic you would end up with a class full of people that had the financial means to not work and to only expand their activities to look at good as possible. People like me - non-trad, 30, and have a family, would be a huge disadvantage because working 50 hours a week and taking 2 classes, I didn't have the same time you did you work at the food bank or homeless shelter.
I know it sounds like that. I don't at all think that UW owed me anything, and as I've mentioned before, it wasn't the best fit for me, and thus the reverse was also almost definitely true, as I tried to mention before. But people posted replies specifically mentioning that aspect of my comment, so I expanded.
If you are correct as to the admissions process (I will assume you are), then it is a bit more communal than I thought. I believed it was a bit of discussion afterward between the three, and then unless there was a huge disagreement, mostly up to the decision of the one committee member. You do appear to be correct as to UW. I was also referring to the general trend toward holistic review and diversity across universities, however, and you'll note that I never once said anything amounting to "I should have gotten in, but they must have given it to some minority or something." I said it may well have been because they somehow sensed it wouldn't be a great fit - I just don't know how they would have perceived that from the interview. I'd still bet it's most likely the case, though.
As to putting way too much into the diversity thing, again, it was originally one point amidst a few, but got dragged out in discussion because it's more controversial. And I never suggested there's a checklist in their minds, but that some experiences will appeal to certain interviewers much more than others, an issue in the subjectivity of all interviews, traditionally checked by stats, experiences, letters of rec, etc. I am just concerned if this is always the case in the later stages of these supposed holistic reviews. Again, not really a school-specific concern. Nor one I've spent nights thinking about,or ever particularly felt wronged by. It was just a thought, as I do prefer objectivity where possible.
I never said my opinions were God's truth. I respect yours, and am glad you brought the opposing view forth. And yes, I am privileged in my background. No, I don't know what it's like to be a person of color, or to have grown up in poverty. And where did I suggest that we shouldn't respect hard work and dedication? You had family obligations and chose to go to school while working 50 hours a week. Where did I downplay that? I did have the opportunity to go to school full time, research, volunteer, and so forth, also while working (though less hours, of course). In other words, I made sacrifices to make myself a good applicant and a better person. You had less choice in the matter, but in the same way as I could have just gone to class and called it good, you could have just gone to work and called it good. You didn't. You sacrificed, because you wanted to go to medical school. Both are valid, is my point, and yours, too, I believe. I think my "choices" comment is getting misshapen with use, to be honest, but at this point, I feel like we're beating a dead horse...
I do apologize if I offended or came off as seeing myself as superior. The original post was really meant to be more about my perception that there may be less objectivity in the process. I stated it poorly, however, and drugged out diversity for far too long.
I do completely understand - it's a complex issue that's highly emotional to some. I wasn't sure if you were upset or just giving advice; either way, I tend to think civil discussion is always best when possible. I think it's important to discuss the important things, especially with those with whom you differ. 
And moreover, the deficit to that thinking, as someone already pointed out, is that then am I ready to also take on the hardships that they go through in their lives?
