I don't expect the majority of figure skating fans to sit and analyze event protocols and specific elements after a close battle, but it seems to me like most (not all) people generally accept whatever the TES score is and rather look to the PCS to cry injustices or disagreements with the scoring.
This is brought up by the Zagitova vs. Medvedeva debate. I personally think some of Evgenia's GOEs are absolutely unexplainable, but I don't see the outcries about that. Rather, most fans and even some media have suggested that the PCS was scored completely wrong. And this isn't the first time.
Why is that? Discuss.
GoE discussions are only now just starting to creep into the narrative, as they should be. But for now, PCS is still the bigger fish to fry for a few reasons that are all interrelated.
1. History. Skating has traditionally been debated over the second mark, so that's where people look first. The world has yet to catch on to the fact that first mark can be split into two parts - base value plus a quality adjustment, which has subjectivity.
2. PCS has a much bigger impact at this point. Sadly, it's still judged and seen as one big blob of a mark in 'aristry'. See my post above. Judges are effectively judging it as one mark, as seen by the narrow band between all marks in PCS. If it really was judged separately, we would see some athletes wih 6.0 SS and 9.25 IN marks...because they are out there. TV and the way scores are read in-areana pile all 5 components into one mark. No granular discussion of "hey I don't get that SS mark...way too high".
I think we are more likely to parse a discussion on GoE. Like if we said it was too high someone would say 'on what element exactly...?' vs you never hear people saying 'which component is too high...?' if someone says PCS is too high. That never happens. Thought of as one mark.
And it's a big mark. A full PCS point means 10 pts in men's long and a bit less in ladies because of the factor. If a skater went from +2 to +3 on everything you're looking at a much smaller impact on the total mark. PCS is like 55-95 pts of your total mark depending on what event, whereas GoE is like 0-15 ish. Easier to focus on PCS.
3. Following from above, PCS swings have been much more suspicious in addition to the impact. As Brennan pointed out, Zag's PCS has gone up almost 10 pts this season alone for the same skate. I would argue that components wise her skate in KOR was her worst of the season but that's another discussion. If her PCS held from earlier in the season, she's in bronze position. Many would agree with me that even that is pretty generous. Same discussion over Sotnikova -- how her PCS shot up in only a few months from low 8s to mid 9s. Completely changed the outcome of the event and there is no explanation for it (hint, you can't go into crowd reaction, skate of her life etc etc as her skates earlier in the year were comparable. IJS has no factor for how much audiences loved your skate because 98% of judging happens in small community arenas with no audience. Same system is applied. So audience enjoyment means almost zilch. And even if it did, why didn't only PE and IN mark go up? SS, TR and CH weren't any better and in fact were watered down a smidge going into Sochi. But I digress...)
All that to say history right up to and including this year have allowed us to point right at PCS and ask questions. Zero accountability from panels to explain this mark.
I dread TES values being lowered and GoE going to +/- 5. GoE will then because of its greater impact be brought into the debate, further highlighting not only subjectivity but the failure to mark what's actually done on the ice.
She's my favorite skater of all-time. 
is every bit as relevant and appealing as the general aesthetics of a program.
