You've just made the case for each reviewer explaining what criteria they've used to judge each story as well as what ratings they've allocated using those criteria.
Never happen. A quick shuffle through a few different reviews will show that each reviewer is different in their approach.
And it confirms my feeling that one reviewer's ratings don't bear a simple relationship to other reviewers' ratings.
When there are a sufficiently large number of ratings eg the readers' scores on a popular story, to some extent the differences are ironed out, but that doesn't apply for a sparse population like reviews, which has an inherent bias from reviewers only reviewing stories they like.
Let's skip the scoring issue. (Done to death)
As for reviewers scores, some don't score at all, a few treat scores as if they were exam results C B B+ etc. Most just score as they feel appropriate. Bottom line is treat a reviewer like a critic, if you find one you agree with, take notice, otherwise, just remember it's only their opinion, nothing more. The only really useful purpose reviews have is too briefly call attention to a story by virtue of the review appearing in the stream.
Once you get over the egos involved, the reality is that this site hosts stories written by a wide range of people of varying skills, who write and post simply for the enjoyment. The site does an excellent job, the readers generally don't bother to vote or respond to stories, as any comparison between views and votes will prove. Authors can write what they like, readers can score or not, how they like, our webmaster should by now have enough proof of how to organise chaos to qualify as a noble prize candidate. So if how or why a story is scored isn't to someones liking, their only practical recourse is to simply ignore the score. Bitching about how, in their opinion, readers should have scored a story is an utter waste of bandwidth.
(As is this post)