You also conveniently forgot to count falls and hands down, step outs or edge calls, which you are very capable of counting when it is Patrick Chan who made those mistakes. None of the above can be reflected in the BV but there were plenty of those tonight. Chan's GOE is high in part because he made no deductible error whereas other skaters made several in their programs, including at least one fall from each of the top 5. Therefore, GOE in these cases are objective in that they properly reflected the deductible errors that have to be considered and a fall on jump usually produces around -3 for GOE, about 99% of the time.
What you are doing is quoting the protocol out of the context, in your very deliberate attempt to continue your infamous "Chanflation" allegation. Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of members here are quite knowledgeable. People here know for example, when Kozuka UR both of his Quads, including a fall on one of them, he may have relatively high BV for those attempts but he would also rightfully receive lesser GOE, plus a mandatory deduction that is not being reflected in the BV. So yes, you could make an argument his overall program was more difficult but it remains a paper tiger if he can't land them properly. I could load a program with Quad Flip, Quad Lutz and other Quads and my BV would look superb - only if it were so easy.
I don't know if you realize it but your continuous outrageous and verbal assaults on Patrick Chan has turned many otherwise ambivalent members who were previously indifferent re: Chan to sympathize with him. The fictional outrage really isn't working very well because people aren't stupid. Not a single soul here has contested the result but you can somehow dig the BV in an attempt to create a controversy when there is none to be found. Take my advice, just let it go, otherwise very soon, no one is going to take your posts seriously.