I officiate women's lacrosse and while that sport is perhaps not the best example (we have major problems), they issue rule changes every year. They have been changing rules annually for the past 15 years I've been involved in it. In fact, at the NCAA level, the rule changes for this year have been massive and transformational (for the better!!).
So rule changes, valuation changes, etc., aren't a sign that something was wrong. They are indicative of growth, progress, greater understanding, better vision for the future.
That's not to say that every rule change is good. Also, rules committees like to prove their worth and justify their existence.
It is a shame that in skating there is no mechanism for rules to be "tried out" for a period of time to see their impact. In women's lacrosse, we have off season "fall ball" where they test new rules and survey coaches and officials to see if the rule had it's desired effect and to see if it works for all skill levels. But in skating, with people getting programs choreographed and that being so expensive, there's no fair way to test rules out, imo. Also, even if there was a 'pro' league, there is no one else at other levels doing quads.
So rules changes in and of themselves don't bother me or indicate that anything is wrong. But in skating, I'm worried that no one is looking at the big picture of audience experience, ease of communicating what is good and what is bad to a TV audience, driving the right behaviors in program development.
The simple concept of GOE on technical elements move the sport forward light years, imo.
But it has become glaringly obvious that the absence of a similar structure for everything else (transitions, entire programs, etc.) is like a millstone around the sport's neck. We won't see real progress until Federations let go of their need to manipulate results for political reasons.
Some ideas:
At the GP/Worlds/Olympics level, it should be possible to measure ice coverage through the use of video cameras. This should be used to put skaters into various overlapping ranges of PCS. Skaters with the best ice coverage can be in the 6-10 range, skaters with 2nd best can be in 4-8 range, 3rd best in the 2-6 range. This will give skaters outside the 6-10 range some concrete idea of how they can move up to a better range, even though they may not initially earn higher PCS as they improve their ice coverage.
Abandon the corridor or at least create two or three corridors: (Corridor 1: skating skills + transitions, Corridor 2: Ch & C + Interpretation, Corridor 3: P/E). This will allow for skaters to be ranked by individual component in a way that reflects what actually happened on the ice.
And for the love of god, let the technical panel assess GOE with the "musical structure" element moved to one of the components. Maybe even move the creative entry & exit bullet points to one of the components, too. GOE is grossly manipulated by the judges. Now that we are at +/-5, that manipulation is going to be a huge, ugly problem.
Here are the old bullet points (not sure if any have been added):
1) unexpected / creative / difficult entry
2) clear recognizable (creative, interesting, original for jump preceded by steps/movements of the Short Program) steps/free skating movements immediately preceding element
3) varied position in the air / delay in rotation
4) good height and distance
5) good extension on landing / creative exit
6) good flow from entry to exit including jump combinations / sequences 7) effortless throughout
8) element matched to the musical structure - MOVE TO PCS
) and depending on the required elements of the LP, I think it makes sense. Why should men get 30 seconds more than ladies? Honestly, on the whole, I feel like mens program tend to drag more than ladies.
This obnoxious micromanaging has become OTT and tiresome. 
, but when I do, oops, I just did, people get all wild-eyed and uptight. 
