It'll be interesting to see how the data plays out over time, especially when up until recently there were some (what I consider) wide swings in what judges were told about scoring when in training class and at some events.
This brings up a question for y'all, is a judge who's considered a hard or low scorer incorrect or following what he/she was taught just like the easy/high scoring judge is doing.
The reason I ask this is as many people know for a while (at least out here in the west) judges were instructed to basically not score below a 5/6 unless it's completely and totally inedible. The reason given was "it would be an insult after all the hard work and money that the teams put in to get to the judges tent with an entry".
Given that instruction wouldn't or couldn't that cause a certain section of judges to automatically score higher and the judges that had not heard that instruction actually use the full 2-9 system meaning they could be scoring consistently lower?
I'd suggest that regional data sampling would probably be a good idea. I'd almost bet that you'd see the data swing from one region to another and most likely from one category to another like chicken being scored harder than let's say beef in TX or beef harder than pork in TN. Just thinking about regional tastes is all and no, I will NOT give an example of how the West Coast would score since KCBS doesn't have a "Tofurkey" category.