Point taken. Making it a guideline makes more sense. To be honest, judges should already have things like this in mind when they judge components but since its quite obvious that some judges still dont judge correctly, maybe spelling it out would be a good idea.
Yeah, issuing a guideline would not be a major rule change. It could be done behind the scenes -- official reminders to reflect errors in the PCS as appropriate, and suggestions for what might be appropriate.
Phil hersh made a great analogy saying that the judging system is like Ferrari. The judges were given it but they don't know how to drive it. Nearly ten years later...they still dont know how to drive it.
I'd rather say "Nearly ten years later they're still figuring out how to drive it." I.e., they know some of what to do, but other areas still need work. And some individual judges are further ahead on the learning curve than others. I don't like stating it in such a way that implies none of them knows anything, because I don't think that's any more accurate than saying they all know everything.
This was a great discussion to have
I hope the real decisionmakers are having similar conversations.