You know what, I may have a solution. Maybe.
I’ve been a longtime outspoken advocate of technical data in reviews. Things like Brix, malic and lactic acid at picking, TA, ABV, RS, some other phenolic ripeness indicators, potassium, TDS, picking dates, wood regimens, etc.
We should pressure paid critics to institute a rule. Published scores are hard-capped at 94 unless the winemaker provides the technical data for publication. AFAIK you can’t chaptalize, acidify, deacidify or water-back a wine without it becoming obvious through the chem numbers. Of course, that doesn’t mean a critic must ding a wine for doing one of those. But the critic should state it was done, even if for good reason.
A system like that would cover the critic’s back and would help consumers decide beyond the language of the critic or the score.
Of course I could just be confirming my priors.