1. Advice to sailors about rules by a judge outside of a protest that the judge will be hearing is always ok.  We do it all the time.  We give rules presentations and write articles.  At regattas we invite competitors to come and talk to us about rules.
2. Just because a judge builds a rules app, or an AI script, doesn't somehow make the assistance in that app inappropriate.

1. has the appearance of favoritism, 
2. is not fair to the responding party as the help wasn't reciprocal, 

3. appears to provide the competitor with the thought process of the judge.

1. IMO, age restrictions of the fleet mathematically shift the level of competency we're looking for. A 10yo will not be at the same level as a 25yo.
2. same here, except I think the only difference between a 20yo and an adult is the level of athleticism expected... we should expect a high level of athleticism in racing where all sailors are college-aged
3. same again for me. If we limit boats to 2 people, then we must also force them to give each other extra room for a douse. Indeed, 2 people is BY DEFINITION appropriate for the boat, as no more are allowed in that event!!!! To say otherwise would be to force collisions at leeward marks!
4. Same. If you are required to have no more than two people, then you are only required to have two competent people, and room needs to account for that.
5. Trickier, but easy to handle. I wouldn't go to the group average, but I would definitely want at least a percentage of the participants to be capable of sailing within the definition of room... otherwise what are we doing?
6. Yeah. I think we need to hold championship sailors to a higher standard. If you're going to show up and compete for a high level national or world championship, then you're agreeing that you can sail above the level of "competent".
7. same as #6

• IMO it is appropriate within the statements from Case 103 to adjust "competent crew" to fit age and other crew restrictions as required by the event/fleet/SI's, etc. (statements 1-4)
• I also feel it makes sense to do so for statements 5-7, but I'm not sure that syncs up with Case 103.