The 'corridor' does not exist anymore; was replaced by a numerical analysis outlined originally in ISU communication 2035 and recently updated in 2098. This is a bit more flexible to allow for deviations outside the mean that might be justified in consultation with the OAC and doesn't allow one specific GOE or PC that was out of line to dictate a penalty or assessment for that official (but rather a continuous trend of being outside the mean of the panel). The Referee also has a bit more freedom to discuss anomalies in their Referee Report, in case a judge says something of merit in the round table that supports their GOE/PC and the Referee feels the rationale is appropriate, they can note that in the report for the OAC/Tech Committee to see in case the "computer program" pulls them out as being an anomaly.
The OAC was present at the OWG and was judging the events. Huang and Chen just weren't randomly or specifically selected for bias, but any judge that had a skater/team from their country in medal content was scrutinized, as well as any judge that already had a "Letter of Warning" for any team in medal contention. In addition, the OAC and members of the Tech Committee were looking for trends that might confirm a "Salt Lake City 2002" type relationship across disciplines, as well highlighted potential issues of "tanking" (marking your own country correctly but intentionally low balling a competitor, instead of inflating your home skater/team and marking their competitors correctly) for the entire panel for all of the events. These discrepancies were compared to their combined event analysis (they first judge separately, then discuss together and come to a consensus on what range would be acceptable). The OAC presents their event report to the Tech Committee, who determines if a Letter of Warning or something more severe is warranted. At non-Championship events, this report comes in later but at Worlds and the OWG, the OAC has to complete everything after each segment is completed and forward to the Tech Committee. For Singles and Pairs the OAC at the OWG was a three person team consisting of a three experienced ISU judges. Based on my sources, for Singles and Pairs it was Canada, Russia and the Czech Republic, who then consulted with along with members of the Singles and Pairs Technical Committee from Italy (Fabio Bianchetti) and Japan (Yukiko Okabe) who were present at the event. My source didn't know who was there for Ice Dance.
Huang was foolish in the short program, especially with his marks for China #2 - absolutely non-sensical. Ms. Chen really messed up in the free skate and there is clearly no rationale for the multitude of +3s she awarded. And as other have pointed out, there are LOTS of other marks that are questionable, not limited to but including the Canadian dance judge, the Spanish judge on Men's, and the Russian judge on Pairs who tried to keep T/M on the podium. Also, the Australian judge on Pairs who clearly knows NOTHING and thought the top 4 teams were all the freaking same in terms of PCs.
And no matter how many times you say in MAXSwagg, Lorrie Parker's judging was no where near the blatant bias of Huang or Chen, or even the Spanish judge in the short who really, really tried to get Javi on top. You're flogging a dead horse, repeatedly.
And while they weren't suspended, my source confirms there were quite a few "Letters of Warning" issued, including the Spanish Judge in Men, the French judge in Pairs, the Italian judge in Pairs, the Canadian judge in Ice Dance, and the Turkish judge in Ice Dance.
I believe the suspensions are warranted, and that there should have been a few more as others have pointed out. I think Mr. Huang is very, very lucky to only get 1 year, especially after the Letter of Warning from the GP Final which called out this exact same thing.