Things like me winning in X innings but my opponent scratched on the 8, made an early 8 or put the 8 in the wrong pocket should matter as it says nothing about my performance. Thus a win like that should be completely ignored by the system. I do not believe it is though as I have seen 2/3 get moved up the next week after winning a match that their opponent fouled on the 8 every time. That is silliness as you can't really rate anyone's performance at that point without seeing the match. For all they know they could have ran all the way out and legitimately missed an easy 8 they left hanging that the opponent accidentally put in or they could have broke dry and then the opponent ran all the way out to the 8 and accidentally scratched while making it with an amazing 8 rail shot they accurately calculated but missed on speed.

Both of those are the same on paper.
8 on the break is another thing. It happens so infrequently and is luck. Yes I call it luck when you try it every time but only do it maybe once every 10-25 breaks, if that, of the trillion+ possibilities for the table layout. It is so infrequent counting it probably has a negligible affect on the average person's rating but would affect the skilled breaker that pretty much spots themselves a game every match if they can do it every 4 or 5 games.
The computer program must have something like a red flag stat. I've seen a 3 player with an average record win a match in 3 innings. An 8 ball on the break and an easy run out with balls spread near pockets. The next week he went to a 4. I told the league operator to look into it and 2 weeks later he was back to a 3 and has been ever since. I think when the computer sees something unusual it automatically kicks the player up.
Just a couple of things, Making the 8 on the break, personally I believe that to be a sort of "lucky by preparation" type thing, That is, we try for it every time but it really is pretty rare, but luck or not it's still a game that you won in no innings same as a break and run or when your opponent knocks in the 8 out of turn or scratches when shooting the 8. There is a place on the score sheet to record all of these as statistical anomalies or something like that so you and me and every other APA player would like to believe that since we're recording these they are somehow accounted in the formula that generates our skill level, my personal belief is that they aren't.
They are just games won by someone in xx amount of innings and it really doesn't matter how you won, to the computer it's just a win in xx amount of innings.
Over a calendar's year worth of sessions and matches a while back I recorded the stats of at least one player on every team in our division (a five team division) and my entire team with their permission, knowledge, and cooperation of course and calculated every week. Without accounting for any of the statistical anomalies like an 8 ball break, or a foul on the 8 ball, things like that. My results were dead on.
It could have been coincidence but I had a reasonably large sample size. I got to thinking about it and the only thing that could have varied were the amount of defensive shots recorded. Defensive shots are largely subjective and they don't always agree.
I know that Skippy says an LO can "lock you in", I, with all due respect, would disagree. It's a phrase that some APA players like to use every so often to explain a lack of movement when they think a player should be rated differently, but I don't think you can be locked in. You have what The APA calls a "Lowest Attainable S/L" and that's the S/L you played in and exited from an HLT (Higher Level Tournament) as, something at the National level of The APA and you can never, without some kind of special permission or circumstance fall below that, but I don't think you can be locked into anything. Why would they want to lock anyone in?
and lastly, these players that you say you've seen, the 3 with a 2 inning avg, and stuff like that, were these players on your team or did you have access to your league database? How did you see them?