Suppose the judges judge exactly the way they're supposed to:
They score the GOEs for each element based on the qualities of the elements as performed, and they score each program component based on their evaluation of each skater's performance in each area according to the same range of scores and expectations of quality they use throughout.
If they think a more mature or more experienced skater showed much better skating skills, performance quality, musical interpretation, etc., in her program they'll give her much higher PCS because they thing that performance deserved those scores.
And if someone else had a more difficult or a cleaner program with much higher TES, then the results may work out to whether the PCS outweigh the TES or vice versa. However, unlike under 6.0, the judges do not have control over most of the TES and they're not choosing how to rank the skaters. If they score skater A higher on PCS because they think she deserves it, and they score skater B with the high TES with more modest PCS because that's what they think that performance deserved, then maybe A will win and maybe B will win. It depends how much better the judges thought A's skating and performance qualities were, and how much higher B's base value was.
If the system is working the way it should, then either result is possible based on the specifics of what each skater does and how each judge evaluates them. If A wins, we could say that her actual PCS skills held her up. If B wins, we could say that her technical content held her up. There's no need to attribute to intentional manipulation by judges results that could just as easily happen by honest judging and honest separation of the GOEs and PCS from the base values.
