May I ask if you looked at the videos that were posted? The jump at issue is at 1:20 in Rachael's long program. The camera angle was perfect.
I did. On my home computer there's a popup every time I try to pause, so it's not very useful for scrutinizing. I watched on my office computer this morning, but I won't be back there until next week.
I'm not a trained technical specialist. But if I were, watching in real time from the angle of this camera, I think I'd have been more likely to call for a review on Nagasu's flip than on Flatt's.
However, whatever the reason any jump was called for review, what matters is what the panel sees on the review.
This video does have a slow-motion replay of Flatt's 3F+3T after the program, from the same angle as the program. What I see there is the following:
She set up the combination traveling down the long axis of the rink toward the short barrier on the left of the screen, let's call it West.
The curve of the edges before and especially after the three turn curved the direction of travel by approximately 90 degrees so that by the time she took off for the flip she was traveling pretty much straight at the camera (South); along the short axis of the rink, perpendicular to the approach along the long axis.
At the time she landed, the blade was facing back down the length of the ice (front of blade facing East, traveling backward West).
Then the landing curved around (on a nice big fast landing curve, not the hook we generally associate with a cheated jump) until she was coming back South toward the camera for the toe loop takeoff).
So, technically, the direction of travel (West) at the point of landing was approximately 90 degrees short of where full rotation would have been if she'd rotated exactly 360 x 3 degrees from the direction of travel (South) at the point of takeoff.
From this angle, with this speed on the landing, I would still consider this a good jump. If I'd had to review it from this angle as a member of the technical panel, I would have said it was within the 90 degrees tolerance and called it fully rotated.
But what would I have seen on the review from the official replay camera angle, with full slow-motion and pause capability? That's what we don't know.
Since the youtube videos are not conclusive, I don't have a problem accepting the Occam's razor simplest solution: from the tech panel's angle, Flatt's jump looked >90 short to at least 2 of the panel members, and Nagasu's didn't (or they didn't bother to review it).
Maybe they did indeed get it wrong; maybe their camera angle was deceiving. Or maybe they saw that the blade was actually heading slightly West-
Northwest at the point of landing making it just enough more than 90 degrees short of an acceptable landing for a South-traveling takeoff.
But since I only have another angle and not an omniscient view to compare it to, I'm not prepared to commit an opinion as to which call was objectively right or wrong.
Now, if I am factually wrong -- if Rachael's flips really did deserve to be downgraded -- then, OK, that's the end of the matter. But I do not believe the technical panel and the judges should automatically be let off the hook with, well, they have a better camera angle, it takes two out of three, they have lots of training, etc.
All we have to go by is camera angles. Even if we could compare the two different angles side by side, if one looks like ~80 degrees short and the other looks like ~100 degrees, how do we know which one is factually right or wrong?
, no space for any negative or nasty words in my dictionary. So I have no idea what 'dumb' means 
