Yes and no.
Yes - not quite the take on MA I was expecting.
Guess it gets hammered into CSIA folk at the Advanced Teaching module that it essential to define a ski task and it's parameters (e.g. pure carved turns with absolute min of skidding, approx 1/2 width of this run, at advanced consistent speed, with a round turn shape and no traversing between turns), plus a demo before assessing. Otherwise a deviation from task that may well have indicated an issue could instead have been an intent.
No - don't agree that it's necessarily easy to read the skier's intent.
Sure, can make a general conclusion (wide turns, short radius turns, steered or carved, direct bump line or otherwise) however the finer points of intent are not so easily understood. Did the skier gain speed throughout the descent because of intent or is there an issue with speed control? Did they really mean to go bump shopping or was that a loss of line control? Defining the parameters of the task grounds the assessment - did the skier perform the task as required? If not, what happened and why. If yes, how could we improve the skier's performance or do we need a more demanding task for re-assess?