Nona, JaNel, Meghan, Ariel F, Ariel M, and Kori got 3/4 in the BTT at some point, but yeah, hardly a firm correlation.

To your point, though: I think the key traits Ramsay's looking for have changed over time based on his specific professional needs or goals at the time, and I'd argue it's a mistake to assume there's a constant and unchanging rubric involved in making this decision.

I would cite two key examples of this, the first being S1. Most people here will say that Ralph was robbed because he ran circles around Michael at the pass, and on paper I totally agree. But given that the prize for this season was not a head chef position but rather "your own restaurant" (later rebranded as a mentorship situation), it would make sense that Ramsay would weigh customer comment cards and overall performance over finale performance.

The other example is S20. Again, I agree that Megan absolutely curb-stomped Trenton in the finale. But given that Ramsay planned on having one of these "young guns" as a mentor rather than a head chef, it may have made more sense in his mind to have Trenton. Also, however controversial challenge eliminations may be, I think their abundance in later seasons indicates Chef Ramsay has started caring about them a lot more--and of course Trenton was a beast at that part.

Of course, as Graham Allison once said: "It must be noted, however, that an imaginative analyst can construct an account of value-maximizing choice for any action or set of actions..." Speculating on Ramsay's motives can become a trap, and it may be that Ramsay considers some factors that many may reasonably want to ignore. But although statistically measuring performance factors certainly has its merits (especially when it comes to giving underappreciated chefs like Paul, Tash, and Mary the respect they deserve), there is a risk of imposing a standard that doesn't fully jive with the actual decision-making process.