# ISU Judging System

The ISU Judging System or the International Judging System (IJS), occasionally referred to as the Code of Points (COP) system, is the scoring system that has been used since 2004 to judge the figure skating disciplines of men's and ladies' singles, pair skating, ice dance, and synchronized skating. It was designed and implemented by the International Skating Union (ISU), the ruling body of the sport.
This system of scoring is used in all international competitions sanctioned by the ISU, including the Olympic Games. The ISU Judging System replaced the previous 6.0 system. It was created partially in response to the 2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal, in an attempt to make the scoring system more objective and less vulnerable to abuse. U.S. Figure Skating has released a summary of the new judging system.

## Previous judging system

Figure skating was formerly judged on a 6.0 scale. This scale is sometimes called "the old scale", or "old system". Skaters were judged on "technical merit" (in the free skate), "required elements" (in the short program), and "presentation" (in both programs). The marks for each program ran from 0.0 to 6.0 and were used to determine a preference ranking, or "ordinal", separately for each judge; the judges' preferences were combined to determine placements for each skater in each program. The placements for the two programs were then combined, with the free skate weighted more heavily than the short program. The highest scoring individual (based on the sum of the weighted placements) was declared the winner.

## Scandal and response

A judging controversy occurred during a pair skating event at the 2002 Winter Olympics, which used scoring based on the 6.0 system. A second award ceremony was held in which the top two teams were both awarded gold medals. In 2004, the ISU adopted the New Judging System (NJS), or Code of Points, in an effort to establish a more objective system. This became mandatory at all international competitions in 2006, including the 2006 Winter Olympics. The ISU released an explanation of the advantages of the new system over the 6.0 system.

## Technical details
### Technical panel

Under the ISU Judging System, the base value of each element performed by the skater is identified by the Technical Panel. The purpose of this panel is to identify all of the elements performed by the skater in real time as they happen. The panel is also responsible for identifying any "technical errors" to jumps; identifying falls of the skater; and the "levels of difficulty" performed in Spins and Steps.
The Technical Panel is composed of the following three people:
* The Technical Controller (TC), who supervises the panel, and breaks ties on technical decisions during the "review of elements" when the TS and ATS do not agree. The TC is also responsible for "rule vetting" the program. The TC can discard any elements from scoring that break the rules for that level and specific program.
* The Technical Specialist (TS), who verbally calls the elements as they happen.
* The Assistant Technical Specialist (ATS), who takes written notes on all of the elements performed and to contribute to any decisions on technical calls during the "review of elements".
The Technical Panel is assisted by two people:
* The Data Operator (DO) assists the Technical Panel for recording purposes, and is supervised by the TC. The DO inputs the codes of the elements and levels of difficulty into the computer system.
* The Replay Operator (RO) operates an instantaneous slow-motion video replay system and supports the Technical Panel in the identification of the performed elements.

### Judging panel

The role of the judges is to evaluate the quality of each element performed (Technical Score) and the quality of the performance (Presentation Score). At most international events and other large National Championships (such as the U.S. Championships), there are nine judges. At smaller competitions the panel might consist of between four and seven judges. An odd number of judges was needed to break ties in the old 6.0 system, but this is no longer necessary with averaging marks in the ISU Judging System.

#### Technical Element Score (TES)

Each element performed has a base value (which depends on its difficulty), and the judges assign a Grade of Execution (GOE), which can increase or decrease the base value. The GOE is marked as an integer from -5 to +5 since the 2018–19 season. Before the system change, the scale went from -3 to +3. Each plus or minus step in the GOE results in increasing or decreasing the base value by 10 % in single and pair Skating and by 16 % in ice dance. The total of all element scores gives the final Technical Element Score (TES).

#### Program Component Score (PCS)

In addition to the Technical Element Score, the judges award points on a scale from 0.25 to 10.00 with increments of 0.25 for different program components to grade the overall presentation of the performance. Since the 2022–23 season, the judging panel evaluates three components: Composition (CO), Presentation (PR) and Skating skills (SK). Before the system change, the judges evaluated five components: Skating skills (SS), Transitions (TR), Performance (PE), Composition (CO) and Interpretation (IN). The total of all components is called the Program Component Score (PCS).
* Composition (CO): This evaluates how the program is designed in relation to the music; how are the different elements connected; how is the available space used; how does the choreography reflect musical phrase and form?
* Presentation (PR): This evaluates how the program is performed; what does the skater express and project; what energy is created; what is the musical sensitivity and timing; for Pair, Ice Dance and Synchronized skating is the skating appropriately synchronized and showing awareness of space?
* Skating skills (SK): This mark assesses the skater's command of the blade over the ice, including the ability to skate with power and ease. The judges look at variety and clarity of edges, balance, body control, turns, steps, flow, power and speed.

#### Computation of scores

The judging panel consists of up to nine judges and one referee. The Technical Panel sends the element codes to the judges' computers for marking. For each element, all of the judges award a mark for Grade of Execution (GOE) that is an integer between –5 and +5. The GOE mark is then translated into a value using the Scale of Value (SOV) table which is published regularly by ISU Communications. The GOE values from the nine judges are averaged using the "trimmed mean" procedure, where the highest and lowest values are discarded and an average is calculated from the remaining seven values. This average value (which may be positive or negative) is finally added to the base value to produce the judging panel's overall score for the element.
Judges also mark the Program Components, which are: Skating Skills; Presentation; and Composition. These Components are marked on a scale of 0.25–10 with 0.25 increments and averaged using the same "trimmed mean" procedure that was used for averaging the GOE marks. Judges also have the power to input majority deductions such as Music Violations and Costume/Prop Violations. The Referee inputs other deductions such as Time Violations, Interruption in Excess and Costume Failures.

### Technical elements

The number and type of technical elements included in a skating program depend on the event and on the level of competition. At the senior international level, the short program for senior singles skaters must contain seven technical elements: (a) double or triple axel, (b) triple or quad jump, (c) jump combination including triple or quad jumps (maximum one double jump), (d) flying spin, (e) camel or sit spin with only one change of foot, (f) spin combination with only one change of foot, and (g) step sequence.$^{:Rule611}$ The free program for senior singles skaters must contain (a) a maximum of seven jumps, one of which must be an Axel, (b) a maximum of three spins (one a combination, one flying and one with a single position), (c) a maximum of one step sequence, and (d) maximum of one choreographic sequence.$^{:Rule612}$
The short program for senior pairs skaters for the season 2023-24 shall consist of the following required elements: (a) any hip lift take-off (hand to hip or upper part of the leg position), (b) double or triple twist lift, (c) double or triple throw jump, (d) double or triple solo jump, (e) solo spin combination with only one change of foot, (f) death spiral forward inside, and (g) step sequence.$^{:Rule620}$ The free skating program for senior pairs skaters must contain: (a) maximum of three lifts, not all from the same group, (b) maximum of one twist lift, (c) maximum of two different throw jumps, (d) maximum of one solo jump, (e) maximum of one jump combination or sequence, (f) maximum of one pair spin combination, (g) maximum of one death spiral different from the death spiral of the Short Program, (h) maximum of one choreographic sequence.$^{:Rule621}$

### Component factoring

The panel's points for each Program Component are multiplied by a factor depending on the event. For singles and pair skating, the factor is uniform for all components, as follows:$^{:Rule353(m)}$
| Discipline | Short program (factor) | Free skating (factor) |
| Men | 1.67 | 3.33 |
| Women | 1.33 | 2.67 |
| Pairs | 1.33 | 2.67 |
The factors in ice dance are different for each Program Component and depend on the dance type.$^{:Rule353(m)}$

### Protocol details

Following an event, the complete judges' scores are published in a document referred to as a protocol. This document uses specific notations as described below.
If a skater attempts more than the allowed number of a certain type of element in a program, then the element is still described and called as such by the technical controller, but receives a base value of 0 as well as a GOE of 0, regardless of how the judges have marked it. On ISU protocol sheets, elements that have been nullified by this are denoted by an asterisk (*) next to the element name. In free skating, for jumps executed twice as solo jumps, the second jump is marked as +REP and receives 70% of its base value. Jump elements performed after the halfway point of a program are marked with x and receive a 10% bonus added to their base value. If a jump has been called as having an unclear take-off edge, that jump is marked with ! and receives a –1 to –2 GOE depending on severity; if a jump has been called as having an incorrect take-off edge (for example, an inside edge on the take-off of a Lutz jump), that jump is marked with e and receives a –2 or –3 GOE depending on the severity of the edge fault. Jumps that are under-rotated are marked with < or << depending on the degree of turns completed on the ice instead of in mid-air. < indicates that a jump had less than a ½ turn but more than a ¼ turn completed on the ice, reducing the base value to 70% of its original value. << indicates a severe under-rotation (a ½ turn or more) and the jump is valued as if it had one less rotation (e.g. a triple would receive the value of a double).
Jumps that are executed in combination or sequence are marked as a single element, with a base mark equal to the sum of the base marks for the individual jumps. However, a combination or sequence can be downgraded – marked with +COMBO (combinations in the short program) or +SEQ (combinations and sequences in the free skate) – in which case the sum of the base values of the jumps is reduced to 80% of its original value.

#### Scale of Values (SOV) and abbreviations of common elements

Every spring/summer the ISU releases rule updates which include a current Scale of Values (SOV) for different types of element. One is released for Singles/Pairs and another for Ice Dance. Click "show" below to view the abbreviations and codes for different figure skating elements.
| Abbreviation | Full name | Full Code |
| Jumps |||
| A = Axel | Single Axel jump | 1A |
| A = Axel | Double Axel | 2A |
| A = Axel | Triple Axel | 3A |
| A = Axel | Quadruple Axel | 4A |
| Lz = Lutz | Single Lutz jump | 1Lz |
| Lz = Lutz | Double Lutz | 2Lz |
| Lz = Lutz | Triple Lutz | 3Lz |
| Lz = Lutz | Quadruple Lutz | 4Lz |
| F = Flip | Single Flip jump | 1F |
| F = Flip | Double Flip | 2F |
| F = Flip | Triple Flip | 3F |
| F = Flip | Quadruple Flip | 4F |
| Lo = Loop | Single Loop jump | 1Lo |
| Lo = Loop | Double Loop | 2Lo |
| Lo = Loop | Triple Loop | 3Lo |
| Lo = Loop | Quadruple Loop | 4Lo |
| S = Salchow | Single Salchow jump | 1S |
| S = Salchow | Double Salchow | 2S |
| S = Salchow | Triple Salchow | 3S |
| S = Salchow | Quadruple Salchow | 4S |
| T = Toe loop | Single Toe loop jump | 1T |
| T = Toe loop | Double Toe loop | 2T |
| T = Toe loop | Triple Toe loop | 3T |
| T = Toe loop | Quadruple Toe loop | 4T |
| Throw jumps |||
| ATh | Throw Axel | Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps |
| LzTh | Throw Lutz | Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps |
| FTh | Throw Flip | Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps |
| LoTh | Throw Loop | Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps |
| STh | Throw Salchow | Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps |
| TTh | Throw Toe loop | Full code shows number of revolutions using same concept as above for solo jumps |
| Spins |||
| CSp | Camel Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| LSp | Layback Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| SSp | Sit Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| USp | Upright Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| CoSp | Combination Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| CCSp | Change foot Camel Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| CLSp | Change foot Layback Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| CSSp | Change foot Sit Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| CUSp | Change foot Upright Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| CCoSp | Change foot Combination Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| FCSp | Flying Camel Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| FLSp | Flying Layback Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| FSSp | Flying Sit Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| FUSp | Flying Upright Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| PSp | Pair Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| PCoSp | Pair Combination Spin | Full code ends in nothing for No Value, or B for Base, 1 for Level 1, 2 for Level 2, 3 for Level 3, and 4 for Level 4 |
| Step sequences ||
| ChSt | Choreographed Step Sequence |
| CiSt | Circular step sequence |
| DiSt | Diagonal in hold step sequence |
| MiSt | Midline in hold step sequence |
| NtMiTw | Not Touching Midline Sequential Twizzles |
| NtMiSt | Not Touching Midline Steps |
| SeSt | Serpentine step sequence |
| SlSt | Straight line step sequence |
| Choreographic Sequences ||
| ChSq | Choreographic Sequence |
| Spiral sequences ||
| ChSp | Choreographed Spiral |
| SpSq | Spiral sequence of any pattern (no longer in use as of 2010) |
| Pair lifts ||
| Tw | Twist Lift, Preceded by number of revolutions. E.g. Double Twist is coded 2TW |
| 1Li | Group One Lift. (Hand to Armpit Hold) |
| 2Li | Group Two Lift. (Hand to Waist Hold) |
| 3Li | Group Three Lift (Hand to Hip Hold) |
| 4Li | Group Four Lift (Hand to Hand Hold) (AKA "Press Lift") |
| Group 5 Lifts | Below all Group 5 lifts, are a pressure lift with rotation on the takeoff by the lady. The difference in code depends on the precise take off. |
| 5ALi | Axel Lasso Lift- Lady takes off Forwards edge and facing the same direction as the man. (Both skaters facing forwards.) Lady makes one full Rotation around the man on the way up. |
| 5RLi or 5BLi | Group Five Reverse/Backward Lasso Lift. Like the 5ALi, the lady makes a full revolution on the way up. This lift she and the partner may be back to back, or the lady is towards the man. Her take off from the ice is from a backwards positions. |
| 5SLi | Step Takeoff- Similar to 5ALi but direction doesn't matter and only a 1/2 revolution on the way up. |
| 5TLi | Toe Takeoff- Similar to 5SLi but the lady's toe taps upon taken. Only 1/2 revolution on the way up. |
| Dance lifts ||
| CuLi | Curve lift |
| RRoLi | Reverse rotational lift |
| RoLi | Rotational lift |
| SeLi | Serpentine lift |
| StaLi | Stationary lift |
| SlLi | Straight line lift |
| Death spirals ||
| BiDs | Backward inside death spiral |
| BoDs | Backward outside death spiral |
| FiDs | Forward inside death spiral |
| FoDs | Forward outside death spiral |
| Dance elements ||
| STw | Synchronized twizzles |
The level of a spin or footwork sequence is denoted by the number following the element abbreviation. The number of rotations on a jump is denoted by the number preceding the element abbreviation. For example, 3A denotes a triple Axel, while SlSt4 denotes a level four straight line step sequence. ChSt and ChSq are step sequences and spiral sequences that have no level and a fixed base value.

### In ice dance

Ice dance judging is similar to pairs and singles, but uses a separate set of rules and table of values. In the compulsory dance, steps are specified and "elements" are defined for each dance as subsets of the prescribed steps. For compulsory dance only, there is no program component score given for transitions and choreography. Instead there is a timing (TI) program component that is exclusive to the compulsory dance, leaving only four program components in the compulsory dance. In the original dance there are five marked technical elements. In the free dance, there are nine marked technical elements. Unlike singles and pair skating, the different program components are weighted differently in each segment of the competition. The highest factored component(s) in each segment are skating skills and timing in the compulsory dance, interpretation in the original dance, and transitions in the free dance. The calculation of these factors is described in Rule 353.

## Highest scores

After being trialed in 2003, the IJS replaced the old 6.0 system in the 2004–2005 figure skating season. Up to and including the 2017–2018 season, the Grade of Execution (GOE) scoring system for each program element ranged between –3 and +3. Starting with the 2018–2019 season, the GOE was expanded to range between –5 and +5. Hence, the International Skating Union (ISU) have restarted all records from the 2018–2019 season and all previous statistics have been marked as "historical".
The ISU only recognizes the best scores that are set at international competitions run under the ISU's rules, and does not recognize, for example, scores that are obtained at national figure skating championships. The competitions recognized by the ISU are: Winter Olympics (including the team event), Youth Olympics (including the team event), World Championships, World Junior Championships, European Championships, Four Continents Championships, GP events, Junior GP events, Challenger Series events, and World Team Trophy.

### List of highest scores in figure skating

* Records: current record holders; technical and component record scores; progression of record scores
* Personal bests: highest personal best scores; highest PB technical element scores; highest PB program component scores
* Absolute bests: lists of absolute best scores
For highest scores achieved prior to the 2018–2019 season, see List of highest historical scores in figure skating.

### List of highest junior scores in figure skating

* Records: current junior record holders; technical and component record scores; progression of junior record scores
* Personal bests: highest personal best scores; highest PB technical element scores; highest PB program component scores
* Absolute bests: lists of absolute best scores
For highest junior scores prior to the 2018–2019 season, see List of highest historical junior scores in figure skating.

## Subjectivity

Like gymnastics and diving competitions, judging in figure skating is intrinsically subjective. Although there may be general consensus that one skater "looks better" than another, it is difficult to reach agreement on what causes one skater to be marked as 5.5 and another to be 5.75 for a particular program component. As judges, coaches, and skaters gain more experience with the new system, greater consensus may emerge. However, for the 2006 Olympics there were cases of 1 to 1.5 point differences in component marks from different judges. This range of difference implies that "observer bias" determines about 20% of the mark given by a judge. Averaging over many judges reduces the effect of this bias in the final score, but there will remain about a 2% spread in the average artistic marks from the randomly selected subsets of judges.
Aside from intra-expert subjectivity, skating is very open to misjudgement from everyday spectators who only see skating casually, e.g. every four years at the Olympics. A skater's jump may look perfect, but the general public will not be aware that the competitor landed on an incorrect edge, therefore receiving fewer points for an element, resulting in the appearance of haphazard or biased judging.

## Criticism

The aim of the IJS is to ensure that the judging of figure skating competitions is more consistent with the judging of sports such as diving and gymnastics. It also includes features intended to make judging more resistant to pressure by special interests. However, there is debate as to whether the new system is in fact an improvement over the old 6.0 system. One criticism of the adoption of the IJS was in the way it alienated casual figure skating fans; whereas the 6.0 system was universally understood due to its simplicity and intuitive scale, the large cumulative scores given by the IJS are less intuitive. Judging bias was also found to be about 20 percent greater in the IJS than in the 6.0 system, with judges being inclined to give higher marks to skaters from their own country.
Initially under the new ISU rules, the judges' marks were anonymous, which removed any public accountability of the judges for their marks. However, problems with this system came to the forefront during the Sochi Olympics in 2014 following Russian skater Adelina Sotnikova's victory over Yuna Kim. In large part due to the judging and technical panels including four Russians, these results sparked a debate over the judges' objectivity. In June 2016 the ISU Congress voted to abolish anonymous judging altogether.

## Ties

While the IJS has minimized the number of ties and the need for multiple tiebreaks, as there were under the old 6.0 system, ties do still occur for both overall score and also for single segments of the competition. Short/rhythm segment ties are broken based on the TES score and free segment ties on the PCS. For ties in the overall score, ties are broken based on the free segment placement.
| Event | Skaters | Discipline | Segment | Score | Segment Placement (Tiebreaker) |
| 2004 Skate America | Cynthia Phaneuf | Ladies | Short program | 50.20 | Tied third (Identical TES and PCS) |
| 2004 Skate America | Alissa Czisny | Ladies | Short program | 50.20 | Tied third (Identical TES and PCS) |
| 2007 World Championships | Carolina Kostner | Ladies | Total score | 168.92 | Nakano 5th, Kostner 6th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2007 World Championships | Yukari Nakano | Ladies | Total score | 168.92 | Nakano 5th, Kostner 6th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2008 U.S. Championships | Evan Lysacek | Men | Total score | 244.77 | Lysacek 1st, Weir 2nd (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2008 U.S. Championships | Johnny Weir | Men | Total score | 244.77 | Lysacek 1st, Weir 2nd (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2009 U.S. Championships | Katrina Hacker | Ladies | Short program | 54.79 | Hacker 5th, Nagasu 6th (Higher TES) |
| 2009 U.S. Championships | Mirai Nagasu | Ladies | Short program | 54.79 | Hacker 5th, Nagasu 6th (Higher TES) |
| 2009 U.S. Championships | Laney Diggs | Ladies | Total score | 147.48 | Diggs 10th, Musademba 11th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2009 U.S. Championships | Kristine Musademba | Ladies | Total score | 147.48 | Diggs 10th, Musademba 11th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2009 World Championships | Sergei Voronov | Men | Short program | 72.15 | Voronov 9th, Abbott 10th (Higher TES) |
| 2009 World Championships | Jeremy Abbott | Men | Short program | 72.15 | Voronov 9th, Abbott 10th (Higher TES) |
| 2009 World Team Trophy | Joannie Rochette | Ladies | Short program | 62.08 | Rochette 2nd, Ando 3rd (Higher TES) |
| 2009 World Team Trophy | Miki Ando | Ladies | Short program | 62.08 | Rochette 2nd, Ando 3rd (Higher TES) |
| 2011 World Championships | Carolina Kostner | Ladies | Short program | 59.75 | Leonova 5th, Kostner 6th (Higher TES) |
| 2011 World Championships | Alena Leonova | Ladies | Short program | 59.75 | Leonova 5th, Kostner 6th (Higher TES) |
| 2018 Winter Olympics | Evgenia Medvedeva | Ladies | Free skating | 156.65 | Medvedeva 1st, Zagitova 2nd (Higher PCS) |
| 2018 Winter Olympics | Alina Zagitova | Ladies | Free skating | 156.65 | Medvedeva 1st, Zagitova 2nd (Higher PCS) |
| 2019 Russian Championships | Stanislava Konstantinova | Ladies | Short program | 74.40 | Kostornaia 3rd, Konstantinova 4th (Higher TES) |
| 2019 Russian Championships | Alena Kostornaia | Ladies | Short program | 74.40 | Kostornaia 3rd, Konstantinova 4th (Higher TES) |
| 2020 Rostelecom Cup | Makar Ignatov | Men | Total score | 260.78 | Semenenko 6th, Ignatov 7th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2020 Rostelecom Cup | Evgeni Semenenko | Men | Total score | 260.78 | Semenenko 6th, Ignatov 7th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2020 Rostelecom Cup | Eva-Lotta Kiibus | Ladies | Free skating | 128.12 | Trusova 4th, Kiibus 5th (Higher PCS) |
| 2020 Rostelecom Cup | Alexandra Trusova | Ladies | Free skating | 128.12 | Trusova 4th, Kiibus 5th (Higher PCS) |
| 2021 World Championships | Chen Hongyi | Ladies | Short program | 58.81 | Březinová 21st, Chen 22nd (Higher TES) |
| 2021 World Championships | Eliška Březinová | Ladies | Short program | 58.81 | Březinová 21st, Chen 22nd (Higher TES) |
| 2021 World Team Trophy | Evgeni Semenenko | Men | Total score | 255.19 | Semenenko 5th, Brown 6th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2021 World Team Trophy | Jason Brown | Men | Total score | 255.19 | Semenenko 5th, Brown 6th (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2021 Lake Placid Ice Dance International | Holly Harris / Jason Chan | Ice dance | Total score | 159.87 | Harris/Chan 4th, Pate/Bye 5th (Higher free dance placement) |
| 2021 Lake Placid Ice Dance International | Eva Pate / Logan Bye | Ice dance | Total score | 159.87 | Harris/Chan 4th, Pate/Bye 5th (Higher free dance placement) |
| 2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy | Anete Lāce | Women | Short program | 54.96 | Lāce 8th, Taljegård 9th (Higher TES) |
| 2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy | Josefin Taljegård | Women | Short program | 54.96 | Lāce 8th, Taljegård 9th (Higher TES) |
| 2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy | Joanna So | Women | Short program | 48.79 | So 19th, Sauter 20th (Higher TES) |
| 2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy | Julia Sauter | Women | Short program | 48.79 | So 19th, Sauter 20th (Higher TES) |
| 2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy | Kai Jagoda | Men | Free skating | 107.75 | Jagoda 20th, Lewton Brain 21st (Higher PCS) |
| 2021 CS Nebelhorn Trophy | Davide Lewton Brain | Men | Free skating | 107.75 | Jagoda 20th, Lewton Brain 21st (Higher PCS) |
| 2021 CS Finlandia Trophy | Keegan Messing | Men | Short program | 92.39 | Messing 1st, Brown 2nd (Higher TES) |
| 2021 CS Finlandia Trophy | Jason Brown | Men | Short program | 92.39 | Messing 1st, Brown 2nd (Higher TES) |
| 2023 Russian Championships | Petr Gumennik | Men | Total score | 295.07 | Semenenko 1st, Gumennik 2nd (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2023 Russian Championships | Evgeni Semenenko | Men | Total score | 295.07 | Semenenko 1st, Gumennik 2nd (Higher free skating placement) |
| 2024 European Championships | Alexandra Feigin | Women | Short program | 57.33 | Feigin 12th, Taljegård 13th (Higher TES) |
| 2024 European Championships | Josefin Taljegård | Women | Short program | 57.33 | Feigin 12th, Taljegård 13th (Higher TES) |

## Judge reduction in 2008

In 2008, the ISU ruled to reduce the number of judges from twelve to nine. The need to reduce costs was given as the prime reason for this change. Since the highest and lowest extreme scores are discounted, the scores of seven judges (rather than ten) determine the outcome of competitions.