Possibly not relevant, but the attitude of some of them to computer usage is completely wrong.E Michael White wrote: he knew of at least some of the other areas of senior arbiter inconsistency. I'm not convinced we get value for lunches out of the senior arbiter title.
Some of us have been using computer programs since at least the 1970s. If "the computer" doesn't produce the result you expect there are several possibilities:-
The data is incorrectly input. Programs usually use ratings indirectly, by setting a pre-tournament sequence of PIN numbers.
The program has incorrectly implemented the underlying deterministic method of pairing
The logic of the deterministic method is itself incorrect.
Actually I'm not entirely even sure that the concept that pairings should be deterministic is completely accepted. As recently as the 2015 British, it could be suspected that the pairings had been tilted to avoid pairing twin brothers. Their very late appearance on the evening in question being a give-away.
With pseudo-random numbers available, I have a pet theory that pairing methods could be simplified by employing a certain amount of random generation. Such methods fall into disrepute when done manually since you could not tell whether there was an intentional or unintentional bias.