For some reason, I missed this post. I still don't think changing a spin will hurt the program. It depends on the skater's skill instead. For Chan, I don't think so.
If Chan attempts to do a new spin variation that causes him to lose balance in the spin or makes him lose speed or simply looks bad, yes, that hurts the program. It can also mean less GOE for the element, so the added base value is not worth it.
Hence, that is probably why Chan is only doing Level 3 combination spins (it's very doubtful that his team didn't consider this maneuver to get Level 4) - it's the best he can do while maintaining the quality of the element. If he was able to include a jump-over in his combination spins and maintain balance and speed for the latter part of the spin, there is no doubt he would be including them in his programs to get more points.
Speaking of spins, they are a large reason why CoP programs are currently hindered in their creativity and presentation. Too much time is wasted on getting into positions that have nothing to do with the music or the overall choreography and spins are no longer allowed to be used to interpret small passages of music, since you don't get enough points for short and/or simple spins and everyone is afraid of losing technical points. This partially comes down to the judging, again, because judges should be observant of the entire choreography and mark skaters lower on certain components when it's clear they are spending time on a spin (or footwork, or transitions) just to gain points. That's rarely what happens, though. Details like this that feel inauthentic and overly routine are likely part of why I see things different than many people. They have come to be considered acceptable rather than distracting and empty.
No real reason. However, the main charge levelled against Chan is not that he doesn't deserve those scores. It's that he doesn't deserve those scores when he has errors, and is held up on PCS - to me, saying "held up on PCS" implies that the TES is not doing any real work contributing to the TSS. In Chan's case, that's not the case - certainly not compared to Takahashi, Abbott, and other cause celebre here.
Oh, I do think it's a very real charge that Chan doesn't deserve those scores even when he skates great, though. If Chan is getting 97 for PCS, then how is someone who has much better choreography and interpretation and performance ability ever supposed to compete against him? Or, more importantly, how does that give anyone the incentive to try and be more artistic? This kind of judging makes it all come down to who does better technically, not an actual split of technical and artistic.
Your theoretical equation of the difference between TES and PCS = the degree to which someone was held up still doesn't have much validity either. When people are held up on the PCS, they can still be getting held up on TES at the same time. Or, conversely, they can be getting held up on the PCS
because of their TES being strong. Moreover, someone having low TES and high PCS doesn't necessarily mean they were held up anyway. Giving a phenomenal performance doesn't automatically being being technically phenomenal.
Agree to disagree, but I'll restate my initial comment: Chan's PCS contribute less to his TSS than Takahashi's do.
I'm not sure what the purpose of your statement is then, if that's what you're changing it to. It's not a bad for someone's PCS to be higher than their TES if they give a great performance; that is in fact something which should happen more often, but doesn't, as a result of lower-ranked skaters being held down on the PCS because of a lack of technical content or reputation/momentum! Chan's PCS contributing less to his TSS than Takahashi's simply means that he is doing better technically...or that he is being held up more technically. It doesn't mean Takahashi is being "held up" more, especially since the general feeling is that he SHOULD be scoring higher in the PCS than Chan anyway (or at least should have higher PCS than TES in comparison to Chan to begin with, since Chan has a more difficult jump layout).
The only way to prove such statements is to analyze the performances themselves and come to your own conclusions about whether or not a skater was held up.