With the new score policy I am a little confused. Isn't CIM supposed to be a 10?

...and doesn't in the "new" system.

...read number 8. CIM isn't mentioned at all.

Everyone is bellyaching about the rating system. That's a fact. I'm not one to just complain, or badmouth the admins, so I've done a bit of thinking about this. The problem stems from the following excerpt in the review guidelines:  
 
"You do not have to give her the ‘extra point’"
 
This puts excess responsibility on the reviewer to give a fair score for the services provided. Given that most reviewers just got their rocks off and probably aren't thinking 100% objectively, that extra point will just be added willy-nilly.  
 
 
Here's the solution:  
In short, Itemized service reviews and aggregated total scores.  
 
For each of the services rendered, the provider gets a 1-10 score.  
This means that, if the provider performs DFK, BBBJ, CFS, they would get 3, 1-10 scores for their work.  
Then, the scores are averaged to determine the aggregate performance score.  
 
   -Performing more services would allow a provider to pad their scores with additional services only if the services provided were actually worthy of high scores.  
   -Performing a limited number of services would allow a provider to score higher only if said services were performed well, but would penalize a provider more if any of those services were performed poorly. It does not explicitly penalize providers for not performing certain services.  
   -Additional data capture would allow the search function to be more granular. Clients would be able to search for who was performing well at a particular service.  
   -Reviews would be more useful to providers because they would have granular feedback on which services they offer score highly and which services they could work on.