Keep in mind that doing skills just gets you into the range. So you can do whats required in the scariest, sketchiest way, and score at the bottom of a high range.
I judge building skills only and I'm forced into giving teams a high range for difficulty (low high range) and a 5.0 on quantity, then I'm handing out 3.6s in technique like candy at a parade. Take the hit, go down to a 4.0 in difficulty from a 4.5 and get get a 4.6 in technique. The math works both ways.
This also comes back to coaches/programs levelling their teams appropriately. Don't be a sketch bag level 3 when you could be a good level 2.
Unfortunately, in the methodology for judging, a crappy skill still counts and you take it out on the technique score.
Think about it from a judges prospective:
You have 2 teams at Senior 4.
One team does all their stunts as releases and inversions hitting the high range - doing 6 at level skills total (2 elite)
One team does all their stunts as twisting and dismounts hitting the high range - doing 6 at level skills (2 elite)
Which one is more difficult? I tend to score the twisting and dismounting team higher in difficulty, another judge would score the releases and inversions higher. Who is right? I have no idea.
I think it's easy to say that individual judges should all score the same, but without a code of points or something telling me which elite skills are harder than other elite skills, it gets really grey and comes down to personal opinion.