Except the 6.0 scores were arrived at in a holistic way, not by building up points for elements and five different components.
Judges may indeed be thinking "A was best at jumps, B was best at presentation, I think that overall the best performance was from A (or B, or C who was not best at anything but had no weaknesses), which is how they would have thought under 6.0, with more specifics but no official base values etc. But that's completely different from trying to keep to keep track of the IJS scores for elements within a point or two much less tenths and hundredths of points.
They won't hear or see the scores that don't match their impressions until after they have finished scoring. They'll hear/see the total scores when they're announced right after the skate, and they'll be able to check the detailed protocols after they get off the judges' stand. But if they have specific questions/curiosity about the event in progress, they won't get any answers at a time that will affect their scores for anyone in that event.
The spin levels don't really relate to the skating skills. Maybe certain kinds of difficult entries or exits. Maybe the change of edge feature.
Seeing that a skater is attempting difficult features in a spin and executing them well (or poorly) would likely affect the GOE the judge chooses to award for that spin, as well as the Performance/Execution score.
When judging a spin, all judges need to think about all the positive GOE bullet points and any necessary GOE reductions if applicable and make their decision about what GOE to award.
For a combination spin with flying entry and change of foot, for example, all that shows on the screen is FCCoSp. The base values for that general code range from 1.1 (two positions, no features, "V" designation for inadequate fly and/or failure to reach the landing position within 2 revolutions and hold it for 2 revolutions) to 3.5 (three positions, four features, full credit).
Will even the judges who also have tech panel appointments remember the base values for each possible permutation of level, number of positions, and inadequate fly/landing, and also the values of the positive and negative GOEs (0.5 and 0.3 each, respectively)?
Or even remember the base value differences between that and the FCSp (flying camel), FCCSp (flying camel with change of foot), and FCoSp (combo spin with flying entry and no change of foot), depending what different skaters choose to do as their freeskate flying spin?
For step sequences, the features are more directly related to skating skills, and the judges probably will be thinking about how the skills demonstrated in the sequence will affect the SS component as well as the GOE for the sequence. They will notice if the skater is turning in both directions and doing a variety of difficult turns and steps and using their upper body and whether they do several difficult one-foot turns on the same foot in succession. But will they be counting exactly how many of each kind of turn and step they do and how much of the time they turn in each direction? And will they remember that the base values for level B through level 4 range from 1.5 to 3.9, and the positive GOEs are the same for levels B-3 but higher for 4, and the negative GOEs are lower for levels B and 1, same as the positive ones for level 2, and same as the level 4 positive for both levels 3 and 4?
A skater missing credit for one or two turns not on clear edges could make the difference between level 2 and level 4 without necessarily affecting the judge's GOE. So even a judge who had memorized the features and the scale of values but didn't see those specific edges as too flat wouldn't know if their +2 would put the score for that sequence at 3.6 or 5.3. They're more likely thinking "Good musical phrasing and nuances, choreographed to the theme of the program, good energy, good flow, mostly clear edges" and not "Three counters, three rockers but all the same direction, two loops, was that a bracket or a counter?, does that count as twizzles or traveling threes?" Counting the turns is the tech panel's job, not the judges'.
Good to know, thanks.
