Player rating for offline Heroes 3 tournaments!

In connection with the above, there are some questions:
1. Has this calculation mechanism already been approved, or are changes possible?

We could discuss this endlessly and never actually start calculating the rating.
Therefore, send your suggestions for possible changes to me in a DM and we will consider them.

2. How seriously do you personally view the following point?
"A valid reason must be stated in writing and sent to the mailbox VDV_forever@BK.ru, but no later than 10 days from the end of the tournament in which the participant did not take part."

Yeah, those are already the results of revisions to my text. That wasn't in there at all :)
I believe that no one needs to be notified via emails. Just extra trouble for oneself and a heap of unnecessary correspondence. If a player decides to play once in another tournament or just take a break from Heroes—that will be considered a valid reason—why not? And why do we need to know about it :) Let them do what they want; the main thing is that their absence will be recorded. I suggested a limit of two missed tournaments without consequences, but I see only one was approved. I'm fine with that.

3. How justified is the application of a 1.5 coefficient for SUCH a tournament? Rough estimates show that you are adding a full two months of game time as a "penalty" for participants who chose a Normal save in exchange for a small amount of resources... Imbalance. And in the future, this is debatable—resources only provide an advantage in the first few days of the Walkthrough. After a week, they no longer matter... The AI strength for Normal difficulty is the same as for Impossible.

In principle, I agree regarding the influence of resources and money on the Walkthrough on certain types of maps. But what coefficients do you suggest? I specifically chose these coefficients so that players on Normal would, if possible, be unable to leapfrog the very last player on Impossible. How justified would it be if they actually managed to do so :) Suggest your own lower coefficients. Then YOU personally will have to explain it to the Impossible players who are overtaken in the rating by Normal players :)
An alternative is to not calculate a rating for Normal players at all. I stated from the beginning that it's better to hold the tournament on a single difficulty level. You did too. But that's how it goes with us. First, we create difficulties for ourselves—then we heroically overcome them. How do you compare the incomparable and then try to bring it all under one common denominator?
And my personal opinion is this—if a player considers themselves skilled but chooses to play on Normal, and as you say, there's not much difference when playing on different levels, then why the hell did they go there? While a player of the same skill level went on Impossible—and what then—who do you think will complete the map faster?
Let's hear what coefficients you are suggesting.

The AI strength for Normal difficulty is the same as for Impossible.

The AI's strength may be the same, but human players are still in UNEQUAL CONDITIONS regardless of the size and complexity of the map, provided that the players are of roughly equal skill.
And how will you then explain to the Impossible players why they ended up with a lower rating than the Normal players, provided that everyone considers themselves a pro player :D

Added after 21 minutes

I also believe that one does not interfere with the other. It's just that, as I understand it, these are completely different things. Grails imply some kind of unification for all versions, whereas the rating should be individual for each.
In principle, absolutely correct. We differentiate a more detailed rating for each version and a General parameter for all.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. If only we could get through that to everyone :)