I think there is a problem with the judging, because it's so unclear what's meant to count as good.
For example, a few weeks back, Suzanne did a difficult but lift-packed routine that Nicky marked down because it didn't have enough skating. That's right and fair if the routines are supposed to have a certain amount of on-ice time, but not if they aren't.
In today's Mirror, Jason says Suzanne "sat on Matt's shoulders and twirled an umbrella - safe and uninspiring", even though she did a spin with the umbrella and more difficult lifts than Zaraah (who's the only woman left to compare lifts). Wasn't there something safe about Zaraah's easlier lifts and hulaing the hoop while standing still? Yet it's hard to say his marks were wrong, because there are no rules. "Safe" can be completely subjective.
(I'm using Suzanne examples because I followed her most closely; there may be examples about others too.)
In any reasonable competition, there are rules that say what someone has to do to get a good score, even in sports such as figure skating and ice dancing where there's a substantial subjective element to the judging. In a show very similar to DOI, Strictly Come Dancing, a waltz has to be a waltz, a tango a tango, heel leads are required at some points, there are strict rules about lifts, and so on.
But not in DOI. Even when there's a "required" element, how much it matters seems almost arbitrary.