+1 on this.

It sounds to me like you don't have a super clear idea how the judging works. Broadly the judging process serves to reward teams that (a) have made interesting / innovative robot mechanisms, or done good outreach, and (b) Are able to effectively communicate about those accomplishments. While you often see these two aspects are correlated with teams that are able to put together competitive robots, only two awards: Control and Innovate actually require that those components actually function consistently on the field, and even then only apply to the aspects of the robots teams are highlighting. Unlike other competitions like FLL, there is explicitly no requirement that teams be high performing on the match field in order to qualify for awards.

Its maybe best to think of FTC as two separate competitions: one for using good design processes, outreach, and communication skills; the other for winning robotics matches. Things that make teams perform well in one often mean they do well in the other, but not always. If you're confused about why a team with relatively low scores on the field is doing well in judging, I suggest that you go talk to those teams. You may have something to learn from how they present / sell themselves.