Yes. If you have GOES and also a PCS multiplier it seems like that's double dipping on the quality side.
On the other hand, it would force skaters to pay especial attention both to the quality of each element and to the the overall quality of the program, rather than just piling on the tech willi-nilli.
I think that this is the motive behind the ISU's continuing struggle to define what the Short Program is supposed to do. Rules like "Ladies cannot include a quad, but instead are judged by the quality of their triple jumps" speaks to this question, but is heavy-handed. Maybe a subtle change in the scoring rules would accomplish the goal without the need for arbitrary rules that are hard to explain or justify.
It might even mitigate the rancor of the debate about age limits.
Actually, though, it is trickier that that. GOEs are about quality but also about objective technical features like height of jumps. PCS include SS and TR which lean more toward the quantitative side, but even the qualities that go into Performance, Composition and Interpretation have quantifiable aspects. As unfashionable as it might be to say so, I am actually pretty well satisfied with the current scoring method and I think that the ISU has done quite a good job of juggling the myriad aspects of the sport.
Thanks for explaining so clearly. I think too that the ISU has a decent system on hand - it's the way it's used that I'm often left confused by and why I keep saying "maybe it's best if we went back to ranking" (again, partly since fewer numbers than now). But of course even that is susceptible to corruption, much like now, and much like this method probably will be. I guess the system isn't really the problem, because suppose Trusova WEREN'T getting 100 TES and 68 PCS for what she delivered...?