The main problem recently is that starting to estimate a plant by point scoring overall lowers dramatically the quality of the awards...
If you take an ashtray, and start to point score it in the Complex Paphiopedilum section, it is possible to get a high AM or FCC, there is no problem about that, especially because it will be ' full' and ' very round'... If it is a black one, get a full score in the 'color' category as well, and substance will be excellent of course. But it remains... an ashtray.
They progessively suppressed in most judging systems the fatal flaw concept, and start point scoring/compare measurements. At the end, we end up with pot plant being awarded AM or FCC, or to the opposite an HCC given to a plant because there is a cluster of AM/FCC in the database that are indeed 'superior', but gone since 50 years in cultivation. This is a real problem after all.
The first is the subjective experience, and a guess, whether it is award quality or not, and roughly what award. Then point scoring can complete the first assessment. When I look at some of the recent AOS awards, there are plants that are worthless that have been awarded, twisted dorsal, assymetry, lower Lidl grade Phalaenopsis pot plant, etc... Or obvious hybrids awarded as species too.
Edit: for those who have OrchidPro, in the last few weeks'awards, there are some really ugly things that got AMs. not only in Paphiopedilum. Some are very good, but very few, overall... A Rhyncholaelia with fully fenestrated flowers and twisted petals awarded AM as well, but some Hengduan Qin that overall lacks anything to be awarded. Photos can be misleading, but well, if the dorsal of a catt is narrow and recurved, when even flat it could not make a full flower, it won;t change to see it in person, it is a fatal flaw, after all...