It was surprising to see INTERMEDIATE scores high up in the 500's. WOW! Is that just "inflation", or is sandbagging going on?
Neither, really. I wasn't there, this time, of course, but more-or-less the same thing happens every time to one degree or another. With only other intermediate fliers in the group, there are no relative references. Put everyone from David and Paul down to the last-placer in beginner in one group, everyone knows that they can't give the less-good fliers consistent 30+ point scores or they will run out of room for David, and, they are using David and Paul the quality of the intermediate maneuvers are very obviously less good.
When I judged intermediate at the NATs (first time it ever happened), there were 3 intermediate circles, and two of the three had many scores in the upper 400s/low 500s. The one that Leonard Neumann and I judged had everyone below 400 points except for one (Dorin, as it turns out, who was clearly the best of our group). They ran it like qualifying, so Dorin and a few others made it to the flyoff, where Dorin won with a low-500s score. Later he got his free entry into Advanced, where he got -wait for it - low 400s scores. The system chose the right winners all along, which is the only goal, but the absolute scores didn't match some abstract conception of the "right" scores.
Everything is *relative*. I am sure there were some pretty good flights, but you don't have to attribute high scores to some sort of malfeasance (sandbagging) or irrationality. Thats why all this ex post facto "analysis" of scores is at best pointless and many times complete bullshit. If you get a 535 and win, that's better than getting a 608 and losing and it might be the same quality flight.
Brett