I am not an OE judge nor was I the one to do the OE judging on my car. Your questions should be directed towards the principles who govern that program. To expand on your thoughts however, what about paint work? No one seems to ever question the non original paint jobs on OE cars. Why are some specifics completely ignored in one area but others are scrutinized under a microscope? Could it be that some folks overlook their own (tolerated) shortcomings while calling out the (differing) short comings of others? What about NOS components for C body vehicles that are cut up and fabricated to "appear as correct" for an E body vehicle? Or what about bodywork that is hidden by (non-original) paint? I believe Keith Rohm was absolutely clear when stating that components were scored (twice) for both originality and condition. If it is original but in less than pristine condition, then it scores as “correct” but possibly gets a deduction for condition. If it is reproduction, it cannot receive points for originality but can receive points for pristine “condition“. Another area you didn’t reference, that is continuously over looked, is the final appearance of a vehicle after the restoration. You can incorporate every NOS part known to man and if it is put together in a fashion that does not emulate a factory vehicle, what was the purpose? There is nothing more deflating than for someone to comment that a vehicle “almost” looks like it just came off the assembly line. That is like someone coming up to a guy with a toupee and telling him it almost looks real or it is the most realistic looking toupee they have seen! Sorry but close doesn't work in some desired scenarios. It is one thing to boast about correct parts, it is another to do those parts their due diligence after they are assembled. Simply possessing or owning the best canvas, paint brushes or oil paints does not make someone a Picasso!