Okay, so I will try to elobarate a bit on what changes I would like to see in the rules, what can be done.
As I have said before I really like the current system. It's not perfect, but I see it as a very strong attempt, and it's the execution and evaluation I am not okay with. The consequences of what happens when a score isn't actually in line with these rules - you can come up with the best rules, if the referees or judges don't keep to them and there are no consequences unless one jumps out of line, but not if the all pretty much make the same mistakes, then these rules are, well, only worth so much.
Anyway, the stated bullet points within the PCS are simply worded much too vague. Apparently this is not just done because it can't be any different, but also to please the people who don't want fs to be a "number's game".
What exactly does for instance "expressiveness and projection" mean? I am not talking about how this can actually be measured in numbers in a very concrete way, by the human eye and body or technology, but to find the very concrete factors that need to be measured and looked at.
The way I understand it expressiveness also means intensity - it means extension, means body tension and the change of body tension in line with the course of the music. It means looking in the right direction regarding the music and program, and not just looking at how much space there is left to jump and where to jump. It means balancing the weight of the body according to this, and not randomly or to only help balance in order not to fall.
So I would like to see some of these words in the component description, just so that everyone knows what we are talking about. Or you can give better definitions or explanations, but the point for me is to make the component as tight and clear as possible, so that everyone is on the same page when we judge a performance. If everyone is allowed to have their own understanding of "expressiveness" then the discussion is not about "but how do we measure this practically", but we leave it very open to actual subjective ideas.
Let's for instance take Kurakova's typical programs, maybe her Chaplin one. I wouldn't want to argue about whether she has expressed the tragedy enough, whether her slight slapstick approach was too light and lovely - although I will (for instance in this forum) comment on aspects like this one, just as I will talk about costumes a lot, I don't think it's the judges' job to score the costumes or such questions of interpretation and intent.
What they should judge on the other hand is how much her body tension and direction was in line with the music, whether she skated with intensity throughout, whether she was struggling with balance or keeping concentration in any way, whether her speed slowed down before a jump simply because she needed to focus on the jump or whether she slowed down when there was a hint in the music to do so.
This point will also be a factor of "musical sensitivity". But what exactly does musical sensitivity mean?
Does it mean that the judges should decide whether this interpretation of Madame Butterfly or Anna Karenina was convincing as a creative concept? The way that critics judge theatre plays? Definitely not. If that was the case I would score, as a judge all those rather sexist or even racist programs (I'm thinking of some Sheherezade programs...) very low in PCS... but as a figure skating judge I would and should simply ignore that. As a sports' judge I should instead judge whether the musical parameters have been transferred into adequate body movement - meaning the degree to which they have been ignored or not. Same goes for composition.
It should not be the judges' job to decide whether a program actually captures the "intent" of the music as an artistic concept, as much as I, as a viewer, would like the skater to do so, just as I, as a viewer, would like certain costumes instead of a generic colour shaded shirt, or whether they come up with a concept that I find pleasing from an intellectual point of view (did they find a new and creative way to deal with the question of patriarchy in this piece... is it historically correct...
) but whether they matched the energy level etc. of the music, kept the tempo, didn't ignore the beats, transferred the change in amplitude etc.
I don't think this is really a big problem, though. Judges usually already score that way, although I think up to a degree there are such subconscious feelings and thoughts about an "adequate" program or preferences, which play a role when they shouldn't. It could help to make it clearer that these feelings don't belong in judging instead of leaving the door wide open with a wording that invites such feelings.
6.0 is already something I do not like to talk about LOL... but yeah, I am aware that the ordinal ranking was sort of doing that but it was still in a large group format as you said, and still both scores, technical and "artistic impression" or "presentation" were added. And with the 9 judges, the ordinals could vary quite a lot and create some unexpected results...
www.redbull.com
skatewithaimee.com
