Interviewing skills are a thing like everything else. A good candidate should jump to the opportunity to explain why she can't trust even herself to do it right (let alone other people, including her future self!). Brining (or making up plausible) examples from experience, etc.
Yes, sometimes it's silly, but there is the harsh reality of how interviewing is executed, especially by those companies who want to base the assessment mostly on the judgement of peers as you said.
If you're really senior, in most cases, you can't expect that the majority of people in the company you're applying to is going to be as senior as you. You'll need to do a lot of convincing and explaining of things that might be obvious to you even after you join, on a daily basis. As with everything, the interview can be a good place to show you can do it.
Knowing the precedence and knowing it well is necessary so that you can read code quickly and accurately. Not so that you can write code using the minimum number of parentheses.
Sometimes, even when you have the power to add parentheses to existing code and merge the commit, you still have to know what the unmodified code is doing: just so that you're sure your readability improvement is not changing the behavior, for one thing!
You can be looking up precedence tables all the time, or adding prints to test things empirically run-time.
Yes, sometimes it's silly, but there is the harsh reality of how interviewing is executed, especially by those companies who want to base the assessment mostly on the judgement of peers as you said.
If you're really senior, in most cases, you can't expect that the majority of people in the company you're applying to is going to be as senior as you. You'll need to do a lot of convincing and explaining of things that might be obvious to you even after you join, on a daily basis. As with everything, the interview can be a good place to show you can do it.