IMHO yes. Sometimes if the deviation is too big yo can get coocked, overcooked, and mostly raw pieces in the same pan, and that's heavily undesirable.
When cutting potatoes into chunks, for something like a stew, I often find myself thinking about this problem, and how I would write a program for a robot to do it.
They are fairly well approximated as ellipsoids of different sizes. Typically, I want pieces around half the volume of the smallest potatoes, but with the range of sizes, this means cutting the larger ones into at least 5 pieces. While it would be simple to make parallel slices giving equal volume, these would have very different shape to the halved smalls. Some can be quartered to give nice chunks, others into thirds with 2 perpendicular cuts...
What I mean is that a 70% score is meaningless to me. I need to know the movie genre, the audience score, the age of the movie and then I basically do a “lookup table” in my head. And I have that lookup table because I’ve looked up every movie I’ve watched on RT for 15 years so I know how the scores correlate to my own personal opinions.
As an example: the author said that critic scores should align with audience scores but no that’s not true at all. Critics tend to care more about plot continuity, plot depth and details while the audience tends to care about enjoyability. Both are important to me so I always look at both scores. That’s why a lot of very funny comedies have a 60-69% critic score but a 90%-100% audience score — because it’s hilarious but the plot makes no fucking sense and has a million holes. And if you see a comedy with 95% critic but 70% audience, it will be thought-provoking and well done but don’t expect more than occasional chuckles.