We really like it. A few observations:
At the risk of sounding obvious, the information contained in the new scoresheet has always existed but was not reported. I've heard a lot of grumbling about "bad tables", "Judge #5", "hard a** judges", etc. in the three or so years since we started competing, and now you can see exactly what table you landed on, who you were scored with, what the judges gave you, how your score compares to that judges' average score, and how you ranked on that table. If someone is of a mind to say they "got screwed by bad tables" I guess they've got something with which to try and make that argument. I look at it the other way: I've heard people say too many times to count "my _______ was terrible" and then they get a call in that category. Maybe on those occasions you thought your entry was bad, maybe it was. Maybe you landed on a "good" table and lucked out. Bottom line, over time the "good/bad" table/judge (if there really is such a thing) will even itself out. The very best teams win week in/week out because they cook consistently well, regardless of who is judging their food. You might suffer a little on a given week, or you might catch a break. But if you bring it strong every time the results will reflect that.
As far as the concept of good/bad tables, I'm not convinced there really is such a thing. Our practice is to turn in certain entries early/late in the allowable windows, and I am certain other teams do the same. I think this could result in multiple entries from more experienced teams getting turned in together, which could then result in some tables getting mostly experienced team entries and others getting newer teams' boxes. Experienced would reasonably translate to better scores on average, which would look like a "good table". But what if those experienced team entries ended up on a table of very tough judges? Might it then look like a "bad" table? And then I have seen/heard of boxes getting reshuffled onto different tables upon turn in so the judging tables don't necessarily get entries in the order in which they're turned in. All this means to me is anyone can read and interpret the data in any way they wish and justify any conclusion they wish to draw.
We're going to try not to use the additional data to justify a bad cook. Emphasis on "try". We are going to keep a close eye on how our scores compare with each individual judge's average score. If we're doing better than average on that number then I fel like we're on the right track. It will also be interesting how we stack up against the strongest competitors if/when that happens. All in all a giant leap forward in data analysis and a useful tool.