There was no doubt who deserved the gold medal for the Ladies event. Two nearly flawless performances by Yu-Na Kim earned her 228.58 points, leading the pack by 23.06 points. For all it's limitations, even IJS could not get this result wrong.
There was also no doubt that Mao Asada and Joannie Rochette deserved the silver and bronze medals in some order or other, finishing 12.49 points ahead of Mirai Nagasu. In some order or other, since the point difference between Asada and Rochette was only 2.86 points.
A 23.06 point lead is a blow out. A 12.49 lead is a slam dunk. And a 2.86 lead can be a head scratcher. There is so much that can go wrong in determining the values of performances, and the point difference between man places is so small, that any error by the Technical Panel or the judges can change the results.
First there is the large spread of opinion among the judges, and the use of just five marks to calculate the panel average after the trim. Then there is the uncertainty and discrepancies in the base values and GoE values that make of the SoV. Does anyone really know what all those elements should really be worth. Witness the controversy over the Men's event and the values of quads.
Now add to that errors by the Technical Panel where an incorrect downgrade, edge call, or level call can unfairly reward or penalize a skater by several points. Examples of this are the calls for Mao Asada's two triple Axel combinations, which photos show these elements should both probably received downgrade calls, giving her the silver medal instead of the bronze.
Nor are the judges perfect. For some elements so much happens so quickly it is hard to pick out everything that needs to be considered in the marks. Not one judge penalized Asada for under-rotations (even if not worthy of a downgrade) or a two footed landing.
Program Components are another source of ambiguity. There are no rigorous standards for what movements and their quality should receive a given mark at the 0.25 point level used by the judges. 0.25 points is not much, but with five components and weighting factors, they add up quickly.
With all these uncertainties, anyone who believes differences of less than 3 points in skating scores have any real significance is living in a dream world in which ignorance is bliss. And there are many people in the ISU involved with the scoring system who are extraordinarily blissful.
For the final results of the Ladies events, there were seven point difference less than 1 point, the smallest being 0.29 points. Four point differences were more than 1 and less than 2 points. Three point differences were mores than 2 and less than 3 points, including Mao Asada and Joannie Rochette at 2.86 points.
The results of this is that for the Ladies event 21 place results could be off by at least one place, and two medal results were likely incorrect.
A scoring system where up to 87.5% of the official place might be wrong and 66.7% of the medal places are wrong does not have a lot to recommend itself for use in Olympic competition, or in any competition for that matter. In speed skating, if the timing equipment was so inaccurate that the vast majority of the results were in question, the ISU would take corrective action to remove the inaccuracies nearly instantaneously. Why will it not do the same for figure skating?