Jonathan Cary wrote:
PFS cannot issue errata, nor does the campaign management like issuing rulings that change the way a feature of the game works. This is because one of the basic tenets of PFS is that it adheres to the core rules as closely as possible.
With that in mind, if something is sufficiently out of line or unclear in the core rules, the option to ban it is usually preferred over trying to modify it and change the core rules.
Usually, sometimes it is altered though and makes the subject in question much worse. Take Racial Heritage, a human feat. It is a subject of errata in which normally it would perfectly find to have a Half-Elf take the feat and become a Stonelord Paladin which is Dwarf only. However its been errata-ed so that cannot happen. Its about worse then the (Orc/Elf) Blood racial feature at the moment as one is a racial trait that is free and the other costs you your first feat. When in fact it would be better to just ban the feat but allow anyone with a chronicle sheet that had the feat in question access to it and being able to use it as it was intended.
I don't think Paizo is bad at their job when it comes to balancing certain things for PFS, I just am sometimes caught off guard by sudden ban choices like Blood Transcription that seem to come from out of left field and other choices that I myself would wonder what make certain things ban worthy.