Scoring explanation in ladies event for beginners

[rollerblade]

What does Mao's SP scores has to do with any of this? If Yuna heard Mao's scores, she had to have seen the performance on a TV back stage, or was told by her coach/team of the 3A fall + no combo.

I still stand by my view that Yuna doesn't give a sh** (ok that's perhaps a bit too much). She had said it numerous times that she'' rather focus on something that she can control [her performance] instead than focusing on things she cannot control [judges scores].

 

[gkelly]

Once again you're interspersing facts with opinion/interpretation.

Here are 10 concise points / generalizations. If you disagree with any of this, please explain:

1. Adelina's score was impossibly high.

Her score was very high, but not impossibly so. She delivered lots of technical content and was justly penalized for her one real mistake. Her PCS were higher than I would have given, watching at home, but so were everyone's. Olympic excitement probably boosted everyone's scores. I also grant the possibility that fast, committed skating was much more impressive live than on TV.

2. The tech panel was controlled by the Russians.

The technical controller was Russian. The technical specialist was French. The assistant technical specialist was Finnish (with a Russian name). The data entry and replay technicians don't contribute to the actual decisions.

They swapped levels on the step sequences

Huh? I believe the top skaters were all aiming for level 4 and that the tech panel called the levels that they saw on the day. I haven't analyzed them in depth, but I know that skaters sometimes leave out steps or don't achieve clear enough edges to get full credit for all their planned features. Same as they sometimes land their jumps perfectly and sometimes fail or are a bit off, not always on the same jump.

and didn't call Adelina for UR.

They didn't call Kim for underrotation on the second lutz either. That's the one that stood out to me in real time and on replay, but evidently it looked OK to the tech panel. They get a different angle and I'll defer to their judgment.

3. The total score comes from short program TES, short program PCS, LP TES, LP PCS.

4. TES consists of base value, plus or minus grade of execution.

These are simple facts, thank you. Best to start your explanation here.

5. People are making the argument that Adelina won on TES. But if you swap the step sequence levels, ding her for UR, and don't give excessive GOE to her while holding down, Yuna would win TES.

6. With fair judging, Yuna didn't even need PCS to win. She would have won on TES, and PCS would have made her win bigger.

For tech merit, I just call it as I see it. I wasn't trying to call levels, and in real time the only underrotation I saw worthy of dinging was Kim's lutz. (Sotnikova's 2Lo in the three-jump combo was overrotated enough that I wondered if it were a downgraded triple attempt. I'd ding it for the step out and incorrect amount of rotation, reward for the strong first jump, -2 overall.)

In real time watching on TV, I gave Kim a total of +18 GOEs and Sotnikova +17.

I could go back and analyze more, but as soon as the results came up, having counted the number of triples, I understood that Sotnikova won the TES, even if I'd have had her lower on components.

7. Yuna had higher BV in SP, but some media only focusing on LP.

Yuna won the SP, albeit narrowly; it's not controversial enough to generate much analysis.

8. Adelina's PCS was in the low 60s, low 60s, low 60s, low 60s, over and over again before Euros.

9. Adelina's LP PCS in the last month jumped to .... 69 at Euros, and then almost 75 at Olympics.

10. The media said Yuna's artistic expression was so much better than Adelina, but they were only separated by 0.09 points in PCS.

This can be explained by any combination of
*Sotnikova skating more confidently as the season progressed
*Sotnikova adding some details to her program that are valued by judges -- as mentioned by Peter Tchernyshev in the IceNetwork article I linked earlier in this thread
*The championship panels as a whole being more generous to all top skaters than the Grand Prix panels
*Judges favorably revising their opinion of her skating as they got to see more of her over the season
*Skating content/speed possibly outweighing artistic expression in judges' assessment of component scores as a whole (I don't know how these two skaters' speed really compared live, but Sotnikova on video looked on par with Kostner and faster than Gold)
*Deliberate manipulation by Russian/pro-Russian officials

The answer could be any combination of the above. My first bullet point would be purely objective reason for a deserved increase in PCS. The last one would be purely undeserved. The others represent subjective and psychological factors that are neither morally wrong nor objectively right, but never completely avoidable when dealing with human assessment.

 

[Ven]

Thanks gkelly, a reasoned and civil response even if you disagree with some points.

Can I ask, who else has scored low 60s, low 60s, low 60s, over and over again, and then suddenly jumped to 75 in two competitions for PCS, even not going clean.
Is there any precedent?

You gave many possible explanations, but I think most people realize those numbers are not realistic. Essentially, the judges scored Adelina as almost tied for the best PCS free skate in history. The tv commentators said "Yuna was the better artist, but Adelina won on the jumps, it's all about the jumps"...but then there was only 0.09 difference between the two in PCS, essentially no difference at all. It's obviously incorrect.

"Overall championship inflation" does not seem correct either, because Yuna and Carolina, among Mao and others, did not see a jump of more than 10 points on their typical PCS, or 5 points from their last event.

 

[Anna K.]

I guess what I am getting at is this. Here are the top ten in the ladies free skate. In the first column is their actual PCS. In the second column is SS times 8 (includes factoring), followed by the difference.

Sotnikova 74.41 73,44 +0.97
Kim 74,50 73.68 +0,82
Asada 69.68 70.00 -0.32
Kostner 73.77 73.12 +0.65
Gold 68.33 68.56 -0.23
Lipnitskaya 70.06 69.44 +0.62
Wagner 66.92 67.68 -0.76
Suzuki 65.78 66.88 -1.10
Edmunds 60.19 60,32 -0.13
Marchei 59.68 60,75 +1.07

So, if the judges want to get it right up to a point or so, all they have to do is take their best shot at skating skills, then sit back and enjoy the show. All the bullet points about intellectual involvement and nuances of the music do not seem to play a roll in the outcome.

The judges might add another technical entry for skating skills and give GOEs.
This is not what I long for but it seems logical

 

[Nater]

Yuna said after seeing her SP score she knew it's going to be an uphill battle. I am sure she heard of Mao's SP score that night as well.

Skating last in FS, surrounded by such an audience, she must have been.. oh, I don't even know. And I don't know how she even did it.

Anyway, here is a scoring explanation I've found in another thread: http://mydearkorea.blogspot.ca/2014/02/sochi-figure-skating-scandal.html

This blogger is too naïve to know that a toe loop actually takes off forwards, as does almost all other triples. Otherwise you're jam the take-off or take off leaning forwards. But we don't discuss technique on this forum, so I'll stop there...

Can't really take seriously an explanation from a person who doesn't even seem to understand the technical details of the sport. That is a very revisionist explanation of how these things went down...

She forgot to talk about the more complicated steps into Sotnikova's Triple Flip, whereas Yuna telegraphed hers across 1/3rd of the rink. She also forgot to mention the choreo out of Sotnikova's triple flip, which helps to up her GOE is counted as a transition and choreo as far as the PCS is concerned. Skaters like Plushenko and Weir did the same thing to help up their PCS and GOE on some of their jumps.

Same goes for the Triple Lutz, Triple Toe. The toe loop technique on the take-off was flawless and she did choreo and transitions directly into her combination - there was literally no break going into that jump, it was pure attack. She only had like 2 (maybe 3?) crossovers in the lead-up so she technically was a bit better at generating speed leading into that combo than Yuna Kim was (because she did not use nearly as many crossovers as Kim to gain her speed). Yuna Kim did 6 (SIX) crossovers around the curve of the rink and cross-strokes 1/3rd the length of the rink into that combination. That's almost the equivalent of skating around half of the rink doing nothing but crossovers and back cross strokes...

If going by the criteria for PCS, one has to wonder why Sotnikova was getting such lower PCS to begin with - even before this past weason. Even many junior skaters are hosed in PCS when you look at their programs objectively and score it based on the criteria given. PCS has always been used like the 6.0 Presentation system (which, BTW, had criteria like this but the judges seemed to ignore much of it when giving that score), and IMO a lot of Figure Skating's fan base still has not moved on from the 6.0 mindset. IJS programs are all about math, strategy, and tactics. You have to look at things a bit differently.

 

[mirai4life]

LOL

Disgusting judging is disgusting.

Since when Adelina deserves THE BEST COMPONENT SCORE OF ALL TIME????? (yea, who cares about the 0.09 difference in score)

Sorry, but this is the biggest joke of figure skating.

Let me not go any further about her overall score and her decent skating and her inability to interpret music.
This probably will be my last season as a fan. I' have no one to look forward to after the veterans are retiring.

bye.

 

[Procrastinator]

Thanks for this thread. Up until the last two posts there has been a really rational tone about this thread that I appreciate given all the hysteria. Just one question: What determines the level of a step sequence? How can one visually differentiate between a level 3 and level 4 step sequence?

 

[Nater]

Thanks for this thread. Up until the last two posts there has been a really rational tone about this thread that I appreciate given all the hysteria. Just one question: What determines the level of a step sequence? How can one visually differentiate between a level 3 and level 4 step sequence?

The number of turns. The amount of footwork you do on one foot across a prescribed length of the rink. Being able to do turns on both feet in ALL (CW/CCW; FWD/BWD) directions. Cleanliness of the turns (Entrance/Exit edges).

There is nothing about my post that is irrational except for the fact that you probably don't agree with it. That blog post linked is a dubious source at beast because the blogger simply doesn't seem to understand how PCS is scored and how GOE is awarded. How do you judge FW levels by making a GIF of 3 seconds of a FW sequence? How do you judge Jump GOE by completely cutting out the transitions leading into the jumps in a 2 second GIF? It's kind of laughable, but I do admire his passion...

Lucinda Ruh was one of the best spinners in the world, but she probably would have had trouble getting level 4 on some of her spins simply due to the requirements to get to it, which means a worse spinner could probably have beat her on spins. That's the way the IJS works, like it or not.

If you still look at programs largely with a 6.0 mindset and admire simpler structure with decent executed jumps and artistry, than who you think should win may be completely different than who really should win based on the criteria for GOE and PCS in a program. Whether we like it or not, ISU and many others simply want to move Figure Skating more from art to Sport, and this judging system rewards bean counting and athletics/difficulty more under this scoring system.

The large PCS (almost never variating) for veteran skaters were largely vestigial from their legacy and due to precedent set by brilliant past performances.

I do like how in his GIF of a great Yuna Lutz he had her doing fantastic steps and transitions into it (a solid +3 GOE 3Lz), whereas she just did crossovers straight into it in her FS in Sochi, which was at beast a solid +2... Pretty much cements my point as to why she is still getting the same GOE and PCS for much easier and simpler programs/jumping passes when she was doing amazing things years ago with the performances she was blowing everyone away with... There's a reason why Yuna got to the PCS level she was at, and programs like she performed in Sochi aren't that reason. Giving Yuna lower PCS would have been like giving Michelle Kwan 5.5s for Presentation. Judges just don't do that.

Hit programs almost always cause a skater's PCS to go up, though. That's why they can keep getting Season's best when the only thing that improved was the jumps while the choreo and everything else stayed the same (yet the PCS continues to rise over the season).

Lastly, the 2Lo on Sotnikova's last combo was overrotated not underrotated. Not sure if that blogger is bad at counting rotations, but that statement was clearly false. It's clear that she rotated 2.25 rotations in the air and leaned, so she had to step out. Even then, the entire combo has to be taken into account. The 3F-2T of it was great, so there wasn't any precedent to penalize that combination like a fall, or even anything near a fall. The step out has a prescribed GOE penalty and it's weight against the GOE the judges give the element as a whole. Which is why she didn't (and shouldn't have) lost much.

About Zijun's PCS not going up. It's because her programs aren't that difficult and TBQH she isn't as good of a "skater" as Sotnikova or Gold (she's quite slow especially once she gets past the halfway point). When she improves, her PCS will improve as well.

Sotnikova's Toe Loop at the back end of that combo, I need a better video to rip off and load into Dartfish to check it.

 

[Procrastinator]

Thanks. I mistakenly called your post irrational because I speed read it and saw something that wasn't there.

 

[Ven]

Some people don't seem to understand that you can't give a graduate level explanation of footwork and step levels to someone who doesn't even know a damn thing about CoP.
They will immediately go "huh?" tune you out, and not care to learn any more about the scoring.

You have to reduce it to very simple concepts and generalizations that keep the spirit of the rules.

Now, whether an explanation follows that spirit or not, is up for debate, but getting too technical isn't any use for beginners.

(of course, Procrastinator asked, so that's fine, but someone criticized this whole thread earlier, and that's who I'm responding to)

 

[Nater]

Some of you don't seem to understand that you can't give a graduate level explanation of footwork and step levels to someone who doesn't even know a damn thing about CoP.
They will immediately go "huh?" tune you out, and not care to learn any more about the scoring.

You have to reduce it to very simple concepts and generalizations the keep the spirit of the rules.

Now, whether an explanation follows that spirit or not, is up for debate, but getting too technical isn't any use for beginners.

The number of turns. The amount of footwork you do on one foot across a prescribed length of the rink. Being able to do turns on both feet in ALL (CW/CCW; FWD/BWD) directions. Cleanliness of the turns (Entrance/Exit edges).

^- That's needed to gain levels.

You can lose levels by having mistakes as far as that's concerned. We've all seen skaters who seem to leave out sections of footwork forwhatever reason in their programs (maybe they are behind the music, they may be fatigued, sometimes they fall like Wagner at worlds and have to rush to stay with the music).

I do think the turns and loop mistakes require some knowledge of skating cause some people simply cannot spot when a skater goes onto a flat or switches edges therefor turning a counter into a three turn and what-not.

But those of us who are familiar with these things are doing the BEST WE CAN to try to help others understand.

 

[gkelly]

Thanks for this thread. Up until the last two posts there has been a really rational tone about this thread that I appreciate given all the hysteria. Just one question: What determines the level of a step sequence? How can one visually differentiate between a level 3 and level 4 step sequence?

The number of turns. The amount of footwork you do on one foot across a prescribed length of the rink. Being able to do turns on both feet in ALL (CW/CCW; FWD/BWD) directions. Cleanliness of the turns (Entrance/Exit edges).

Specifically, the current features for singles step sequence levels are

Minimum variety (Level 1), simple variety (Level 2), variety (Level 3), complexity (Level 4) of
turns and steps throughout (compulsory)
2) Rotations (turns, steps) in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at
least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction
3) Use of upper body movements for at least 1/3 of the pattern
4) Two different combinations of 3 difficult turns (rockers, counters, brackets, twizzles, loops) quickly
executed with a clear rhythm within the sequence

The definitions/clarifications are:

Types of turns (executed on one foot) : three turns, twizzles, brackets, loops, counters, rockers.
Types of steps (executed on one foot whenever possible) : toe steps, chasses, mohawks, choctaws,
curves with change of edge, cross-rolls, running steps.
Minimum variety must include at least 5 turns & 2 steps, none of the types can be counted more than
twice.
Simple variety must include at least 7 turns & 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Variety must include at least 9 turns and 4 steps, none of the types can be counted more than twice.
Complexity must include at least 5 different types of turns and 3 different types of steps all executed at least once in both directions.
Use of upper body movements means the visible use for a combined total of at least 1/3 of the pattern
of the step sequence any movements of the arms, head and torso that have an effect on the balance of the
main body core.
Two combinations of difficult turns are considered to be the same if they consist of the same turns
done in the same order, on the same edge and on the same foot.

There are too many details for one person to see in real time, which is why one member of the technical panel takes responsibility for counting the different kinds of steps and turns and the other members will count the rotations in each direction, the upper body movement, and/or the combinations of difficult turns.

If I wanted to call a step sequence at home, I'd probably need to rewind and watch the sequence once for each feature. And even so I sometimes know "That was either a rocker or a counter" in real time but I need to see it again to figure out which of the two it was. One reason that tech specialists need to have been advanced skaters themselves is that they have done these turns and feel them in their bodies so they can recognize them much more immediately on sight.

The turns in both directions will usually happen as planned, unless the skater is really off and leaves out steps.

If a skater who is trying to do all that doesn't get credit for level 4, it's probably because they had shallow edges or changes of edge on some of the turns and didn't get credit for those turns, therefore didn't earn the "complexity" feature; because the upper body movement was more cautious and didn't get credit for having an effect on the balance of the
main body core, or because the combinations of difficult turns were not clean or were not quickly executed with a clear rhythm.

Lucinda Ruh was one of the best spinners in the world, but she probably would have had trouble getting level 4 on some of her spins simply due to the requirements to get to it, which means a worse spinner could probably have beat her on spins. That's the way the IJS works, like it or not.

I have no doubt that, at her peak, if Ruh had been given the 2014 rules for spin levels and a few months to learn a few new skills like edge changes, she could have put together three level 4 spins to fill the three spin slots in a program. When she was skating the rules allowed more total spins in the free program, so she tended to spread out the features she could do among more spins, each of which would have earned a lower level. She also would have earned higher GOEs than a worse spinner.


ETA:

Some people don't seem to understand that you can't give a graduate level explanation of footwork and step levels to someone who doesn't even know a damn thing about CoP.
They will immediately go "huh?" tune you out, and not care to learn any more about the scoring.

You have to reduce it to very simple concepts and generalizations that keep the spirit of the rules.

True.

Nater suggests a simple summary for how to explain step sequence levels to a newbie.

But then what?

If you want to argue that Sotnikova should have had lower levels and Kim should have had higher levels in Sochi, you need to analyze what they actually did on the day. You can't just argue on the basis of what they had earned in the past. So either analyze the sequences fully and tell us which features they each should or should not have earned credit for that day, or leave the step sequence levels out of your explanation of why you think Kim deserved higher TES.

 

[jimmybean]

@mirai4life: you'll have mirai nagasu

 

[Ven]

True.

Nater suggests a simple summary for how to explain step sequence levels to a newbie.

But then what?

If you want to argue that Sotnikova should have had lower levels and Kim should have had higher levels in Sochi, you need to analyze what they actually did on the day. You can't just argue on the basis of what they had earned in the past. So either analyze the sequences fully and tell us which features they each should or should not have earned credit for that day, or leave the step sequence levels out of your explanation of why you think Kim deserved higher TES.

Yeah, I clarified there wasn't anything wrong with Nate's post. Because of the location of my post coming right after his, I wanted to clarify that I was responding to an earlier criticism.

As for the levels, I definitely don't know how they are graded, but I've seen the score sheets and it's almost always:
Yuna = Level 4
Adelina = Level 3

Then some experts in threads here and tv have questioned the levels that were given in the Olympics:
Adelina = Level 4 (especially when nobody else received this high in SP -- except maybe Suzuki, I don't remember)
Yuna = Level 3

You are correct that the levels have to be judged that particular day, but when one athlete consistently gains level 4, but then gets dropped, and the Russian girl consistently gets level 3, but gets upgraded to 4 by a Russian dominated tech panel in a controversial judging situation, you have to admit that is a place to start looking for inaccuracies, right?

Especially since many people on this forum, and experts on tv, have been questioning the levels, calling Adelina's footwork sloppy and her edges scratchy, etc.

 

[skatedreamer]

.

I think one of the big problems with some posters on this forum is, if you disagree with their stance on the ISU and the perceived judging issues, then they think you are just mad that your chosen skater didn't win. For me, the issue with judging has absolutely nothing to do with who was favored. The corruption that I perceive taints a fantastic, beautiful sport that I love to watch. If a skater I preferred was unfairly credited to get the win, I would still be upset. When I'm behind an athlete, I want to see them succeed on their own merits. If they lose the big moment, then I congratulate whomever stepped up to take the prize.

Thanks for this! It pretty much sums up how I've been feeling about the ladies' event and judging in general.

 

[Anna K.]

If going by the criteria for PCS, one has to wonder why Sotnikova was getting such lower PCS to begin with - even before this past season. Even many junior skaters are hosed in PCS when you look at their programs objectively and score it based on the criteria given. PCS has always been used like the 6.0 Presentation system (which, BTW, had criteria like this but the judges seemed to ignore much of it when giving that score), and IMO a lot of Figure Skating's fan base still has not moved on from the 6.0 mindset. IJS programs are all about math, strategy, and tactics. You have to look at things a bit differently.

This is a very good question! There have been skaters whose carriers were hindered for years giving them low component score. They were told to go home and refine their skating looking up at those who had the highest componenet score. Besides, they often did. It didn't look fair though so today we don't see 10-20 points difference between technical and component score. Hence Sotnikova was given huge component score and look what we get.

So, PCS are used like 6.0 system, meaning, skaters are all compared to those who are allegedly the best. Sotnikova is given the highest score so she's the bencmark. But she doesn't look like one and there's an awful lot of people who don't understand that - or hate that - or laugh at that. For many, it's pretty much the end of the figure skating they loved. Is it how it was supposed to be?
Tell me I got something wrong.

 

[jaylee]

I do like how in his GIF of a great Yuna Lutz he had her doing fantastic steps and transitions into it (a solid +3 GOE 3Lz), whereas she just did crossovers straight into it in her FS in Sochi, which was at beast a solid +2... Pretty much cements my point as to why she is still getting the same GOE and PCS for much easier and simpler programs/jumping passes when she was doing amazing things years ago with the performances she was blowing everyone away with... There's a reason why Yuna got to the PCS level she was at, and programs like she performed in Sochi aren't that reason. Giving Yuna lower PCS would have been like giving Michelle Kwan 5.5s for Presentation. Judges just don't do that.

Yu-Na didn't get any +3s for that triple lutz out of footwork at 2007 Worlds. http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2007/wc07_Ladies_SP_scores.pdf And when you adjust the different factoring for the GOE she got then, she still gets less GOE for her solo lutz in 2014 Olympics FS, as she should have, since she didn't have preceding footwork. So no, that doesn't prove your point that she gets the same GOE for doing an easier jumping pass now versus back then. It actually contradicts it completely.

Judges have been far more generous with +GOEs for the 2010-2014 quad than the previous quad. That applies to all skaters, not just Yu-Na Kim. Miki Ando in the 2010-2011 season is a good example, as she performed her FS remarkably consistently all season long. You can see her jump GOEs jump up significantly though she made no changes to transitions and the way that she landed the jump in each competition didn't change (which is unusual). The judges just became more generous with jump GOEs, and they stayed that way. It's not limited to Miki, though, or any specific veteran skater. You can see this across disciplines.

On average, judges began using the range of GOE, particularly positive GOE, more for all skaters. It was as if the reduction in the scale of values (+1 for a triple lutz used to be mean +1.0 points; now it means 0.7 points) encouraged them to use more of them.

You need to stop viewing everything through a filter of Yu-Na/veterans get overly rewarded for doing less; newcomers get lowballed for doing more. That appears to be your thesis and you look only for facts out of context to support that. In your analysis of Yu-Na and Adelina's 3Lz/3Ts, you don't mention at all the fact that Adelina flutzed. It's a pretty clear flutz, and it's not unusual for Adelina--she's a consistent flutzer. And yes, Adelina's 3T was also underrotated, though it might have been at the 1/4 border, so I'd have been okay if they didn't call that if they at least had called the flutz.

 

[oo7]

http://www.feverskating.com/fevers/64956111

 

[jaylee]

In real time watching on TV, I gave Kim a total of +18 GOEs and Sotnikova +17.

I could go back and analyze more, but as soon as the results came up, having counted the number of triples, I understood that Sotnikova won the TES, even if I'd have had her lower on components.

Thanks gkelly for taking the time to patiently answer folks' questions. I appreciate hearing about your thoughts on the scoring.

I am okay with them giving a pass to Sotnikova's 3T and Kim's second 3Lz since they both looked borderline to me in replay, though Kim pre-rotates her lutz minimally and I think that should be taken into account since she's still rotating as much as other skaters are in the air. Had the technical panel called Sotnikova's flutz, and had her 3-jump combo been given -2 across the board as you would've given it, and had there have been a wider gap between the two on some of the components, and the results still ended up in Adelina winning TES and the FS and the competition overall in a very close result, the scoring and result would have been more palatable to me. (As it is, I am not one of the ones screaming bloody murder; I just strongly object to the way some folks are tearing down Yu-Na in order to justify Adelina's win further.) But all of these factors together don't invoke my confidence in the judges and the way they scored the skaters.

At the very least, the flutz needed to have been called. It's not fair to skaters who spend so much time working on proper technique on lutzes for a skater who has flutzed their entire career and has consistently gotten called on it, to not get called on it in a major competition that coincidentally happens in their home country. Had other skaters known that they could get away with a flutz, they could have used the time working on lutzes on other elements of their skating instead.

 

[gkelly]

Can I ask, who else has scored low 60s, low 60s, low 60s, over and over again, and then suddenly jumped to 75 in two competitions for PCS, even not going clean.
Is there any precedent?

I'd have to search to confirm possible guesses.
The closest I can come up with offhand is Denis Ten 2012-13; earlier in the season he was earning about 70 points of PCS for his freeskates (with mistakes); at Worlds he got 40+ for his short program, which would be 80+ if doubled by the free skate factor, and then overnight he earned 87 PCS for his freeskate. He did skate much cleaner at Worlds, which would account for at least some of the increase.

You are correct that the levels have to be judged that particular day, but when one athlete consistently gains level 4, but then gets dropped, and the Russian girl consistently gets level 3, but gets upgraded to 4 by a Russian dominated tech panel in a controversial judging situation, you have to admit that is a place to start looking for inaccuracies, right?

Only if you know what you're looking for.