I think kids on one end of the scale put together routines that exceed the minimums do so with skills that reflect their hard work, determination, and dedication to the sport. There are other kids on the opposite end of the scale who put together routines that meet the minumums in the most minimum way possible. These choices reflect their level of work, determination, and dedication to the sport, which doesn't come close to their peers' at the other end of the scale.
What is competition if not a means of reflecting training hours, values and commitment levels. Is is fair to take a deduction for a kid who's just barely meeting the minimums with the easiest skills possible, or is it fair to take a deduction for the kid who's got a few shakes and wobbles in routines that are packed with extra difficulty. I'd say it's unfair for the girl who's going all in with her skills, and go bit further........
If you want to compete as an optional gymnast at L9 and L10 you have to want, and be ready, to run with the big dogs. It's really as simple as that, because while the USAG has added levels with easier, more incremental routines to ease kids into competition, they will never treat the top two levels of JO gymnastics that way. You'll notice there are no mandatory move ups through the levels, which is an invitation for kids who want to participate, to stay at the earlier optional levels. That's what kids, well coaches really, who craft minimum routines should do, but don't. It's a matter of coaches wanting to be involved (for bragging rights if you ask me) and for kids who wish to fulfill their dreams.
Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too.......