I certainly can't speak to ski jumping, but thank you for providing that example.
The thing is, for every program there will be up to 15 scores (12 GOEs and 3 PCS). For the vast majority of those, there will be more than one judge who gives the highest GOE and more than one who gives the lowest, as
@Andrea82 pointed out. For most jumps with falls, all of the GOEs from all the judges will be identical -5s, so they will all be both the highest and the lowest for that element.
For mathematical purposes of arriving at the trimmed mean, it doesn't matter which of many -5s (or which 8.25 or 7.75 component score in Andrea82's example) gets dropped. The mathematical effect is the same.
The purpose of dropping the high and low was never to identify judges who are more biased than the others. There are other calculations used for that purpose.*
(*For rules about how deviations are calculated to determine potential national bias or incompetency, see
https://isu-d8g8b4b7ece7aphs.a03.az.../2661_OAC_Communication_2024-251731319942.pdf)
Over the course of an event, most judges will probably have some of their scores dropped, especially if you alternate randomly among those who have the same score.
The purpose is to mitigate the effect of outlying scores, whether as a result of bias, honest differences of opinion, momentary errors, different ways of using numbers**, etc.
***E.g., some judges may consistently be more generous on GOEs or more stingy on PCS across the board, so their scores might end up highest or lowest more often than the rest of the judges', but if they are consistently high for all the skaters (or consistently low for all the skaters), that is not bias.
Similarly if they have been trained to avoid giving 0 GOE whenever possible, so they might give a lot of -1s and +1s for so-so elements that most judges give 0s.
They might take an approach of spreading their component marks to make sure that they clearly distinguish between the skaters who did best and worst in these areas across the field and to have plenty of room to distinguish among the skaters in the middle on each component.
They might also make a point of spreading components for the same skater, so that if most judges gave Skater X PCS of 8.25 7.75 8.0 and this judge gave 9.0 7.0 8.0 (which is the kind of thing that many fans argue would be "more correct" use of PCS), both the 9.0 and the 7.0 would get grayed out, but notice that the total PCS this judge gave this skater are the same as most of the rest of the panel, and their high CO score and low PE score getting grayed out cancel each other out, so they're not giving either an advantage or disadvantage to this skater.
Again, this does not represent bias if it is done consistently across the board.
What is the reason that you want to see high and low scores highlighted on the protocols for each element and each component? If you're just looking to see what the range is at a glance, they could shade all the high scores in one color and all the low ones in another so you can pick out the high and low numbers without singling out individual judges where several of them are in agreement.
If you're looking for individual judges who are frequently out of step with the rest of the panel, that kind of highlighting could allow you to run your eye down each judge's column and see if certain judges had more highlighted scores than the rest of the panel.
But you'd have to examine them more closely to see whether it's because this judge consistently uses a higher range, a lower range, or a wider range, or whether there is a pattern of consistently overscoring particular skaters (especially their compatriots) and underscoring others (their expected closest rivals).
