I look at a lot of resumes and would say most aren't well polished or curated. They often don't showcase skills either, but it is surprising how bad resumes still are today.
How much effort did they put it? That’s at least a first indicator how much they care about getting the job.
Resumes are not intended to be a proxy for (assessing) talent. They're intended to be a proxy for (assessing) experience. Portfolios, references, and interviews are intended to be a proxy for assessing talent.
It’s a pipeline. People are filtering the resume and you show up late in the process to interview. The resume is giving you material. You study it before the interview and based on what’s on it you look for opportunities to casually measure the candidate in a manner most favorable to the candidate himself. If the candidate can’t answer questions which probe the things his resume claims as expertise then it doesn’t bode well.
I have a hard time imagining an alternative.
It might very well be that you html.pdf thingy is great.
Unfortunately, this approach has flaws. The person doing the initial screening may not have a deep understanding of the role and is often working with secondary information. This can sometimes lead to them becoming gatekeepers, filtering based on superficial criteria (like career gaps, job switches, etc)