I never heard that the judges who were doing PCS only were bored. It was the ones who were doing GOE only who were bored. How would this work below the world-class level? The number of officials is a compromise between accuracy (more is better) and practicality (how many people can we afford to house and feed and pay travel expenses for). The most important events that have money coming in from sale of TV rights can afford a lot more than those that rely only on entry fees. Initially, at the beginning of the IJS and even before that with the Interim System, the ISU thought it was a good idea to dilute the politics on the international panels by bringing in more judges and then randomly choosing some judges' scores not to count. That soon became cost prohibitive and they dropped that practice. Worlds and Olympics always used to have 9-judge panels under 6.0 (plus an alternate), but Grand Prix events and other smaller or less-important internationals often only had 7. Regional or club competitions would sometimes use 5. Same under IJS except that it can also work with even numbers of judges. The addition of the technical panels has already added considerably to the costs of running a competition, at any level. Already most local competitions use only 5-6 judges on each panel, and when they're desperate for officials they might have to go down to 3-4 for some events. (And may make do without an assistant tech specialist on the tech panel, and without video and data operators if they're not using video replay) With 6 judges, if you split the judging panel into three sets of task you could have only 2 judges in each section. But if you require four sections, or if there just aren't enough officials available to the local club, then you'd end up with only one judge making all the decisions on his/her own for the whole subset of skills assigned, OR you'd have some or all of the judges covering more than one subset anyway. Judges at club competitions or even national competitions are likely to be less experienced than international judges, but they would have more authority than the more experienced judges at the big competitions that can afford larger panels. So by the time the judges got to the national and international level, even if we exclude all of the currently trained judges who are used to doing all GOEs and all PCS, they would likely have years of experience judging all or most of those skills at once. Then when they get to the higher judging levels, you give them less to do. I'm not sure how to justify that logically, aside from the assumption that international judges want to judge politically so we need to devalue their expertise in order to dilute their power. Well, some observers approach the question determined to find an answer that proves there's a problem. So if judges disagree, that's always a problem, and if they always disagree, that's a problem. In that case, no solution will satisfy them and as soon as you make a change they will find problems with the new status quo. If we want to be honest about it, we should first analyze exactly what about the current status quo is the system being designed wrong (good reasons to redesign), what's a case of most judges consistently implementing it wrong (need better training across the board), and what are isolated cases of individuals making occasional mistakes (need better training for those who make such mistakes frequently, and maybe failsafe devices to catch the mistakes before certifying them into the official scores). They max out at +3. And the guidelines for positive GOE say So if they found 4 positive bullet points, they would generally be starting from +2, not +3. If they found 3, they'd start from either +1 or +2 -- most likely +1. The rules don't say so, except in allowing discretion as mentioned in the bit I quoted above, but I would imagine that some judges might consider that if the description of a bullet point says "good" then if they think that aspect of the element was good they'll award one bullet point, but if they think that aspect of the element was OMG! phenomenal, they might count it twice. They still can't start any higher than +3 for the most perfect element. And of course if it has any flaws that require reduction, it wasn't the most perfect so it would be extremely unlikely they would start from +3. Maybe, e.g., a huge, high, fast jump with excellent takeoff and landing edges, right on the music, with varied or especially beautiful air and landing positions would deserve +3 and then deserve a reduction for a telegraphed entry. Or forget the "excellent takeoff edge" and have the technical panel call "e" for unclear edge, not blatantly incorrect, that looked fine to the judge in real time. Or if a Lucinda Ruh or Alissa Czisny does a flying spin that's excellent as a spin but didn't quite achieve the necessary flying position in the air. I think it would be great to bring these outside experts and train them to judge these qualities in skating performances. The practical problem would be the expense. Skating judges have spent years judging locally and traveling at their own or their federations' expense to get to the international level, at which point they continue to judge within their own countries on a regular basis and/or travel internationally at the ISU's expense, but they earn no take-home income from judging -- either they're independently wealthy, or they have jobs that they have to leave for up to a week whenever they get a judging assignment for a lengthy competition and/or in a distant location. How many arts experts would be willing to give up several weeks of their income-generating work, even if it's mostly a long weekend here and there, to volunteer to judge figure skating?