Intruder, -“value in braking PIREPs especially when they report degraded braking”, agreed. Similar agreement with the comments on grooving and friction-enhancing surfaces, where even without wear, grooves can hold water if the wind is strong enough.
Your example is less convincing. The root of the problem is the definition of braking action – ‘normal (braking) for the conditions’. You describe ‘your’ ‘normal’, normal for the aircraft type, normal for the level of autobrake selected, normal for the amount of reverse used, but this is of little value to other pilots as they do not have your definition of normal.
You appear to asses the braking action from the apparent deceleration. When using auto brake there is no foot force / angle feedback to judge the amount of braking used, and similarly with auto brake and reverse it is not possible to assess the reverse contribution to deceleration, which is not related to the level of braking.
Your description of the antiskid working suggests that you may be sensing a deep skid vice normal, smooth antiskid operation. This of course depends on the aircraft and type of antiskid system installed, which is another difficulty in achieving a ‘universal’ standard of assessment. The various types of antiskid performance are shown
on P 358 onwards, where the design aim is to minimise the occasions and duration of the dips in brake pressure so to maximise braking.