Brilliant move definitions

I've noticed with some of my games recently, that a brilliant move only occurs when a sacrifice is made. Although I do think that this is a good approach, I also think that the definitions should be slightly tweaked, as a move may be very good and powerful and have the same result of a sacrifice, without the sacrifice itself. What I'm trying to say is, a move that appears bad on the outside due to some tactical motif (not necessarily a sacrifice) may also be brilliant as it may force a better outcome with a high move depth. This is just an opinion though. Others may not see it the way I do, and I completely understand. Please don't get angry or annoyed from this post, as it is mainly an observation.

is this related to bugs or suggestions?

if no to both of these then don't post on chess.cam beta forums

It's a suggestion mainly

Did you check what the analysis defines as brilliant? When I checked just now it said it's "an amazing (ie. the best, probably) move that's tricky to find". I also know personally that most of my brilliant moves were not sacrifices, so what you seem to have observed doesn't hold in general.

Also, you seem to rated mostly in the triple digits, which is probably also a significant factor. It might even be an idea to focus a bit less on what the computer says given how often it'll take things for granted that you just can't expect from someone below 800.

Finally, do note that there's option in the "help" menu for suggestions/questions like this.

Game Review changed the definition of Brilliant and it has to be a sacrifice of material, either a direct sacrifice or leaving a piece en prise, that was the best or good move.

Game Report had a completely different definition. 

i have some games where a quiet move (not sacrificing anything) is brilliant 

If it was in Game Review, you'll probably find that the quiet move allowed material to be taken by your opponent.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/32686203885?tab=review