I think the current rules are definitely a step forward from the 6.0 guidelines, but there's still a lot of room to make them even clearer.If the rules cannot clearly establish what attributes/outcomes are measured in the judging system and why, and how much each actually counts, it is not only the casual audience or the fans who are confused. Clarity is even more important for coaches, choreographers, and skaters.
That is not to advocate for going back to the 6.0 system, which was hardly a model of clarity either. However, numbers alone do not guarantee accuracy, precision, and validity.
Especially the Transitions guidelines, which don't have any written expansions. All the rulebook says is to judge them on a scale of 1-10 on the basis of Difficulty, Quality, Variety, and Intricacy, without even officially explaining what each of those bullet points means.
So what would be good solutions to address the problems that
1) Transitions scores (and also Performance/Execution, Choreography, and Interpretation) appear to be too highly correlated with Skating Skills and not judged independently, and
2) The official criteria for judging Transitions are very vaguely spelled out?
One possibility would be to get rid of the separate score for Transitions, roll up most of it into Skating Skills and give a larger factor to that Skating Skills score, and also consider some of the variety and intricacy aspects of the transitions under Choreography.
Another possibility would be to spell out the Transitions criteria more specifically so that judges would all be on the same page about how to judge them and skaters/coaches/fans would be able to read that page and know what to expect.
I guess a subset of that would be to make a scale of values for (certain kinds of) transition moves.
How could the Transitions criteria be written more clearly and objectively? Any suggestions?