There are plenty of restrictions in the system about repeating difficult variations and some people think that the tano or rippon variations should be dealt with in the same way.
The difference is that difficult variations in leveled elements, or different kinds of jumps (takeoff+revolutions) are called by the tech panel.
If it's a tech panel decision, then if at least two of the three members agree that there was indeed a variation, then the skater would automatically get credit -- until they reach the number of times that variation is allowed, and then no subsequent executions of the same variation would get rewarded, even if performed much better in the later element.
Judges, on the other hand, have the discretion to use judgment for each element, as well as for PCS. It's not automatic, but rather up to each judge to determine whether what the skater did was difficult and/or well-executed enough to qualify for that bullet point, and whether that bullet point is enough to push the GOE of the element up one more point (since each positive GOE point is supposed to represent 2 bullets).
The judges aren't keeping track of how many times did the skater do this same variation. Each time they're asking themselves "Did this variation add to the difficulty and/or enhance the quality?" If the answer is No, or if it results in an odd number of bullet points without most of them exceeding that judge's cutoff for "good," they won't give a reward in the GOE. But on the next jump, the answer might be Yes.
As long as "varied position in the air / delay in rotation" is one positive GOE bullet point, then judges can reward any varied position or any delay in rotation under that bullet. But they each get to decide each time.
They also get to decide whether the choice to use those variations enhances or detracts from the purposefulness or originality of the choreography and to reflect that judgment in the Composition score. And whether it enhances or detracts from the "clarity" criterion of the Performance component.
My main concern is that that bullet point can cover many different possible in-air variations, as well as delayed rotation, so I certainly would not want any rule that allows that
bullet point to be awarded only once or twice per program.
It could be appropriate to say that the
same variation can only be rewarded once or twice per program. As long as it remains a GOE bullet point, there's always the possibility that judges will lose track of exactly how many times the skater executed the same variation, for example, and give credit the third time even if only two are allowed. But certainly if there were instructions to limit the number of time the same variation could be rewarded, most judges would pay some attention to whether they had seen that same variation before in that same program.
I consider landing arm overhead, free arm overhead, and both arms overhead during jumps to be different variations because they have different effects on the technique of the jumps. But a judge -- or tech specialist the in-air variations were given to the tech panel to reward -- would have to pay close attention to notice
which arm the skater had overhead.
I also think straight arms vs. curved arms can be considered different, assuming they're not just somewhere in the middle. Most skaters do either one or the other or somewhere in between. But if a skater did have two different jumps in different parts of the music, one with one hand clasping the other wrist in a stretched narrow triangle shape overhead and the other in a curved ballet 5th position, I would consider those two different variations and want judges to have the option to reward both of them.
Not to mention switching arms in the middle of the same jump, as in the John Curry example linked in the first post of this thread.
I think it's a good idea to encourage variety in variations -- but not to limit the number of jumps that skaters can get credit for using
a variation.
Just as for jump bullet points 1, 2, and 5, I think skaters should be rewarded every time they can do steps/skating moves directly into a jump or a creative exit out of a jump, but I think the rewards should be higher if they can do different creative entries and exits every time rather than, say, the exact same steps into or exits out of multiple jumps.
That might be another case where the GOE can be awarded every time but judges are free to ding the repetition under Composition if it bothers them.
And surely delay in rotation should be rewarded every time a skater can clearly achieve it. Which is more likely with lower-rotation jumps in any case.
. He used to do it on his 2axel, as well. 
