The effects of a zero score are pretty interesting.
In looking at the PAPA 19 qualifying scores, the 2 players on the one point bubble this year would not have benefitted from an awarding of points from, let's say 200 to 0.
Cryss S, had no zero scores in his best run, but still just missed the cut. Recalibrating does not really help him. Escher L. was tied with Cryss, but had 2 zero scores. However, the 2 zeroes were not near the upper end of the scores that awarded zero points. So it was not a case of "all that work for nothing." Recalibrating the scale probably would not have helped him.
This to me is the interesting case: A little farther down the qualifying list is Johnny M. who missed the qualifying cut by 5 points. However, his GoT score of 509 MIL on his best entry ticket was one of the top 10 zero scores out of 84 zero scores.
Looking at other qualifiers in A who made the cut but had a zero on their best A ticket for GoT were Andy R. and Jason W. Comparing: Johnny's GoT score was considerably better than Andy's and Jason's scores on their best A ticket: Johnny 95th, Andy 125th, Jason 150th.
In looking at the composite qualifying score, Andy was at 251, Jason finished at 227, (they both made the cut) Johnny at 204, but all had zeros on their best tickets for GoT. If points were awarded for everything and assuming 1 point differentials that far down the list, Johnny would have 55 points more than Jason when comparing their best tickets where the zero exists. Johnny would have only gained 30 points on Andy. So just looking at those scores, Johnny would have qualified much higher than Jason.
Granted, I did not recalibrate every scenario and every ticket, but this particular example stuck out to me as a case of all zeroes are not equal.