The scoring system is inherently unfair when near-perfection and visible errors are bunched into -0.1
(flexed toe = 0.9 meter-length step = short split); medium errors are heavily subjective
(a step being 0.9 vs. 1.01 meters; a handstand being 29° vs. 31° short; a leg separation being shoulder-width vs. more), result in a .20 increase in deduction despite the relative severity of the error not increasing 3-fold, 1+1 = 3 for Body Shape, etc.
You can come within range for most E scores by assuming 8 x -0.3 = 8.4 and subtracting ~0.1 for every visible error; or, more generally, -0.3 from a routine with visible errors/+0.3 for great sets:
- Melnikova (UB) = -0.3 = 8.1
- Andrade (UB) = +0.3 = 8.7
- Wong (FX) = -0.3 = 8.1
It isn’t perfect, but it shouldn’t be close. It’s how we get an Olympic FX final with scores bunched together as closely as Tokyo; execution can’t be differentiated properly when constrained to -0.1, -0.3, -0.5, until something is done about it, we should probably focus on whether the final
results match the quality of the gymnastics presented, rather than
scores.
TL;DR = if anything, this “open-ended” / “objective” scoring system is worse than 10.0 at separating routines. Lower numbers may give an impression that Execution matters more, but that’s just for optics.