Caroline's jumps are not just underrotated (at times) - they are tiny and have ungainly takeoffs, which is cause for -GOE in and of itself (meaning they would still score less even if underrotated jumps were given a proper base value).
I'm not sure that you are seeing the whole picture. After all, you have not answered my question:
If someone does a big Triple jump that looks good but was a bit short on the landing, do you really think that should score less
than someone who rotated a few degrees further but landed on two feet, fell out of the landing, and put both of their hands down on the ice?
Because that's how the system currently works.
And, to re-iterate my point again:
If they rotated 10 degrees more, and then basically fall, does that mean they "worked hard enough" on the jump? If you think about it objectively, I am sure the logical conclusion will become apparent.