No judge can ever give a number like 7.23 in IJS. Their only PCS options are 0.25 decimal increments -- either 7.0 or 7.25, for example. And for an element GOE, their only options are -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5.
The finer decimal places that you see in the right column of the protocols are a result of averaging different judges scores for each component, and of the percentage of base value that determines how many (tenths or hundredths of) points each GOE score is worth for that element, which is then averaged across judges.
I know. My point stands. Parsing scores into quarter points and +5 to -5 is absurd, and it is almost never done properly, IMO, or course. That doesn't mean I disagree with all results under this system; I don't. I just think that there's a lot more intuitive ranking (and sometimes prejudging and shenanigans) going on than sticklers would like to believe. I don't blame the judges (except for the shenanigans), since I think it is actually impossible to watch a skating performance and run through every bullet point for every element AND every bullet point for every PCS score.
No one ever claimed that 5.5 meant anything specific under 6.0. It was always a placeholder. If anything, it might mean "world class but not quite medalworthy" in a very general sense -- which might turn out to be medalworthy at this particular event depending on the rest of the field.
With IJS scores, it's not really necessary to leave room for later skaters. If an earlier skater really does do many things just about as well as can humanly be done, there's no reason not to give them 4s and 5s for most of their GOEs and 9.75 and 10.0 for most of their components. If a later skater also does a similar number of things equally well or better, they can also earn the same kinds of GOEs and components, including the exact same marks for some elements and some components. It will be the one or two areas where the judge does see a difference in the later skater's favor that could make the difference, along with the base values that the judge has no control over.
Only straight 10.0s and straight +5s across the board would leave no room for a judge to reflect any difference. And even then the base values would determine the winner.
This is one of the strengths of IJS over 6.0. Neither system is perfect, and there are a lot of things I like about IJS. This is one of them. Also, one of the big weaknesses of ordinals was that, barring some really strange and unusual events, you had to be in the top 3 in the short program in order to even have a chance at winning. With simply adding scores together, that is no longer true, and we can have a champion who finished 7th in the short win the event. This is far more interesting, and IMO, a far cleaner gage of what's put out on the ice than what happened with ordinals. Especially since I've seen skaters 1-8 virtually tied after the short in terms of scoring. That means it's anybody's game in the long.
Had you and the other judges in this contest spent years evaluating similar contests with similar sections and similar marks? Over time, I'd expect you would develop your own sense of what numbers were appropriate for what level of quality, and in comparing notes you and the other judges would come to more agreement about just what each score represents.
It took some time for 6.0-trained judges to come to that understanding with the new IJS scoring when it first came in, but after a decade and a half I think there is closer to a consensus.
I've been doing this for years, trust me, I know what I'm looking at in my own field. Relative judging is way, way more natural a way to judge anything for us human beings.