Congrats on the Women's Global Event to everyone involved. Truly an awesome showing for the women of disc golf.
That being said I would like to explore the unique opportunity the WGE presents using ratings for event ranking and even payout. John H has made some good points that have been asked over the years. I particularly would like to address one of CK's responses that has not been true over the last three years or so as ratings are used to determine more now than ever before and the list growing. PDGA ratings at the Pro level are being used for seeding players in large scale tournaments, $1,000+ skins match involvement, sponsorship deals, sponsor bonuses, PDGA Player of Year Awards and now even Global event payout. WOW, that's a huge list of potential money directly tied to PDGA Ratings. Ratings are a great thing for the PDGA base membership, don't get me wrong. I am very appreciative of the hard work by CK, Roger and others. The idea of having a rating system that doesn't allow the players to get rated against the course they are playing, but instead sets a course SSA against the quality of players playing that course on that day or round is what is not right.
CK: The ratings system isn't a theoretical math project. It was primarily created as a functional mechanism for the PDGA to more fairly slot amateur players into divisions. One thought in the beginning was to simply keep the numbers hidden and simply indicate the lowest division an amateur could enter. But the Board decided ratings were "cool" and wanted us to figure out ways to provide them to everyone. So the system has incorporated a few mathematical compromises to deliver that promise to members. Stats professors would wince. But then, no one is yet getting paid based on their rating, only tournament results.
Let's take a quick peak at the Women's Global Event. A good case because the women played the exact same layout for two rounds on the same day. A number of ratings anomalies pop up with just a quick review of the Pro Women. No in depth analysis here, I am not a big stats guy. I just know when stats don't feel or seem right. 
WGE Winner Paige Pierce shot (3) strokes better in second round, but only received (8) points increase in her round rating.
(57 at a 983 and a 54 at a 991)
Sarah (Stanhope) Cunningham shot the hot rounds both rounds at 53 for a 956 and a 52 for a 967. One stroke better for an eleven point increase. That is not that strange unless you compare that to other events. In Sarah's event 64% shot the same or better for round rating increase of 1 point. In Paige's event 63% shot same or better and rounds decreased 22 points for a same score. 
In the Bartseville event with Liz Lopez, 44% of the field shot same or better and ratings went up between 14-17 points for the exact same score from round one and two. 
Des Reading shot one stroke better in round two (55) than round one (56). For shooting that one stroke better, her round rating went down 15 points. The weird thing with this one was that she played first round with Pro/Adv propagators and second round with Int/Rec propagators. This supports the long standing belief that the better the propagators, the higher the ratings. If her same 55 would have been with the same Pro/Adv propagators in round two, her round rating would have been 949 instead of 924 for a 25 point difference.