I think using generic score levels is overly simplistic, but there is some sort of complex version of this which might have some truth to it.
Generally, if you look at what AOs for holistic review colleges tend to say, the Harvard litigation data, other available data, and so on, it appears to support the idea that many competitive candidates end up in a category which we might call “good enough” academically. And sometimes that means you might have a very high chance of admissions at that point, barring something notably negative.
At other colleges, they are still planning to reject a significant percentage, perhaps a majority, perhaps a large majority, of the applicants who were deemed good enough academically. But then most of what they are looking at is not academic, they are looking at valued non-academic activities, valued personal characteristics, other things loosely called fit, probably yield models, and so on. And they trying to put together an overall mix of actual enrolled students (hence the need for yield models) that meets various competing institutional goals, AKA priorities.
Of course sometimes particularly outstanding academics may be a part of that conversation, but more rarely than I think some people realize. And even if it is, it probably isn’t going to be a matter of higher test scores. More likely they will be digging into the “story” told by your transcript, and maybe considering other academic qualifications. But again, most of the people actually admitted will just be considered good enough academically, and it will be other non-academic things that make a difference for them.
OK, so how do they determine whether you are good enough academically? Well, sometimes they have some sort of specific policy based on some formula. But barring that, they will tend to look at your whole transcript in context, considering your school report, counselor and teacher recommendations, other aspects of your application, other third-party information sources, possibly regional reader experience, possibly internal historic data–all sorts of stuff.
And then test scores are also evaluted in context, and in fact one way to think about them is they ARE additional context for your transcript, but with interactions with other contextual factors.
OK, so in any given case, what sort of test score would get this individual at this college to good enough academically to be competitive? Well, it could actually be impossible, meaning even a 1600 wouldn’t work. Or in some contexts it could take something relatively modest by their normal standards–like a test score below their reported 25th can be quite helpful to some applicants. And anything in between.
So in theory, sure, good enough for you could only happen if you were somewhere above a 1560. But in practice, that is a vanishingly small possibility. Like the data even for the most advantaged students applying to the most selective colleges seems to support the idea that it is very unlikely that a 1560 won’t be good enough as long as their grades and rigor and recommendations and such are good enough to begin with. Whereas even a 1600 wouldn’t change the results if all that wasn’t good enough to begin with.
And then for less advantaged applicants–well, very few get any such score, and so the ones that do are already going to be huge standouts at that level.
Finally, as others noted, there are cases where admissions might have one standard, and then merit might have another, and indeed might even be more formulaic. But unless they publish such a formula, data is sparse, so it is hard to say anything meaningful.