A probably very unpopular opinion but I think that IJS is a very good system and it is the best way to evaluate a sport like FS (not perfect but good)
Let me explain why, FS does have a subjective aspect that will ruin the sport if removed, which is why I don't think that using computer to judge is a good idea. The rules as they are written assure that difficulty and quality for both elements and programs as a whole are considered and evaluated. The fact that the bullet points and PC criteria are guidelines is also the best way to handle a sport with an artistic side that needs the judges to have the ability to reward innovation and creativity, which are things that cannot be always rewarded with pre existing rules since no one thought of it before the skater. I myself used similar scoring rubrics when marking students work (videos, essays, presentations, etc) so I understand the system and how it should work. I can see its strengths and weaknesses and I can understand why some rules are written the way they are.
Take for example PC; before it was in the hands of the judges, they were to decide if the performance as a whole was impacted by errors and deduct accordingly. However, that wasn't working well, not because of the rules did not work but because the judges did not apply it. There was a huge debate between fans about how much falls should affect PC scores and we never truly agreed on anything because there is really no easy solution.
The ISU decided to acknowledge the problem and they added the rule that a program with serious errors should have its PC capped for all components, and that is a bad idea. They tried to take the power from the judges by introducing a rule which should force the judges to consider this deduction (or cap) when scoring performances with errors. The problem is that PC is not a fixed value that you can deduct from. It is a scale that is used to rate the quality of the performance (errors included) and that is exactly how it should be. By putting a cap on PC they put the judges in a weird situation and the result will be one of three scenarios 1) If a judge though that the performance was very good even with mistakes they may go higher than they would have before to ensure that the skater is not hurt too much by the deduction. 2) If the skater does not usually receive scores above 9 then the deduction will not hurt them and they will be getting higher scores compared to a 9+ skater with the same number of mistakes, which will create a discriminatory situation (that many fans don't seem to care about because top skaters are privileged and should be punished all the time ) 3) the judges will latch on to the "it is a guideline" and ignore the deduction altogether to prop their favorites, which will undermine the whole system.
What I was trying to explain in my lengthy example (sorry ) is that the original system was the better way to evaluate the component and what was needed is accountability and quality control for the judging. Because they couldn't do that (or didn't want to) they put a rule that messes up the process and creates new problems without actually addressing the original issue. Strict rules are not always the best option and giving the judges space is required and useful as long as it is not abused (which is the problem really)
The same goes for GOE, the judges need to have some freedom to reward quality even if the element does not hit all bullet points, but this also needs to be controlled and justifiable. I personally think it is correct to give an element high GOE even if he didn't hit all bullet points required if it was an outstanding element that is a highlight on its own (Boyang's 4LZ ). I also think it is okay not to give high GOE if the element is mediocre even if it hits the bullet points for it. That freedom to assess quality and reward creativity and innovation is essential in a system that have a subjective element and it should not undermine its credibility.
The real problem with IJS (if we ignore corruption) is and has always been the lack of unified interpretation and understanding of the rules . The judges will always have their own opinions on what makes an outstanding element or a great performance and that is fine. What is not fine is that they would have a vastly different opinion and interpretation of the rules or that they would let other factors, such as national and cultural bias, influence that judgement and interpretation. The judges need to be on the same page when it comes to recognizing quality even if they did not all end up giving +5 ( few +4s should be acceptable) for a great element. However, we should not be seeing +5s and +1 or +2 for one element because that is absurd and unrealistic
TBH I don't know how to fix this. When marking we do quality control by having someone else check your marks afterwards and adjusting the it later based on second opinions, but that is hard to do in FS since they need to give scores immediately after the performance. Maybe more transparency to make the judges accountable and aware of each others thought process, or possibly having multiple workshops where the judges sit together and judge different performances while discussing it so that they can exchange ideas and opinions and maybe reach a consensus or a compromise where they have different perspectives
Sorry for the long post, I just like discussing the IJS