That's the theory. But then you get into the writing styles and leadership policies on strats. Say Q3 and Q1 dudes are decent enough people outside of the jet, but not good enough to warrant an OPR strat (CC says only top 15% will get a number) or a DP and not bad enough to get a DNP. They do the same deployments and have similar jobs in the squadron. On paper, they can re-use everyone elses' uber exaggerated bullets on how much money they save the AF, how they make everything more efficient by 110%, and how they were handpicked (voluntold) to lead some extracurricular. No differentiating pushes, exaggerated fluff to make mediocrity sound phenomenal, and maybe a too lenient CC equates to the two people looking nearly identical. The board then has only one discernible difference, a filled square.
Maybe I am crazy, but I always give more credibility to a person who is good at their job over someone who pretends to be and has a worthless degree.
Edit: I agree the problem should take care of itself, eventually...just not at the O-4/O-5 level.