You say this like there has never been corruption and suspect judging under 6.0, where judges and their scores were clearly identified.
Under the 6.0 system, what was the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 in terms of difficulty, execution, choreography, expression, etc? Imo, the corruption problem back then stemmed not from the criteria, but from the scale, which was simply not broad enough to address the finer differences in technical and artistic merit, which resulted in ambiguity, which made the system prone to corruption.
I think the format they have now is vastly superior to the 6.0 system, if only because it's more detailed (ie separating components and increasing to a 10.0 scale was a good idea). It's like the difference between HD tvs and regular tvs - one of them can capture more information, which results in a clearer picture.
My view of it is that the changes they've made in terms of the scoring system (the numbers) are pretty good (with some room for improvement). But now they have the opposite problem as the 6.0 system - scale good, but criteria is ill defined.
It's problematic because the concepts and language of the pcs criteria is what they're supposed to be using to come up with the numbers that we see (ex: 9.75 for any given component has to mean something with respect to the criteria listed for that component -- and right now I see too much ambiguous language that lets you argue 9.75 for this skate, 8.5 for that skate, simply by prioritizing a certain criterion to justify the high scores, and prioritizing another criterion to justify the low scores -- that desperately, desperately needs to be sorted out hwell