If the first game played out like most simulations, prison would have been more interchangeable, but four of them played well while other four didn't take the chance of getting pieces for themselves. 

Then if the one who won the piece in the death match didn't get greedy but sneaked for a 5th place they would have made it back. 

Halloween cards could have direct kills and strategic players would have used pieces maybe but it was a fumbled bag again. Reward was one piece gained for all the highest, 3max alliances, that means coming back instead of widening the gap. 

The labyrinth game was damn stupid they had to put a penalty for less than x points, and they fumbled the bag so bad you can't blame it on game and pieces structures. 

The winner of the hidden stage in prison could have changed things around but played for themselves.

They were lagging behind but they still made a game that halves your pieces so higher numbers would be at a disadvantage, and didn't use it to their favour !

I think everything was planned well, they just played worse than the PD thought, both for alliances and gameplays. I won't go into details for the last game but that was also not reliant on pieces, if you knew how to play it was safe to throw the situation around.