Yes, I gave you an example where the first-place player completed it in one day, and the second-place player took 1000 days. Do the math yourself. The second-place player doesn't need your first component; it won't correct anything.

The first component is yours, not mine. It's a non-linear rating that you suggested to everyone a month ago. I simply brought it to a more correct form, like an oscillator. Please be consistent in your statements. But if the second place isn't significant, it will be unfair to the player who took that place.

But here, he got lucky and reaped a huge reward for free.

And if the second place is also the last place, then the rating doesn't need to be calculated. I agree with that too.

Just don't overreact... All your examples are unlikely. This leads to a very nice conclusion: you don't see any real problems in the scheme I proposed. And that's despite the fact that no one has delved into this task as deeply as you. I think that's a plus. And minor issues (the ones you're talking about) will appear in any scheme. The probability of such a scenario is zero, so it shouldn't be given much attention.
So, everything is fine.

But you said you didn't see any changes in my last post. This means I should conclude that you didn't look at the rating attached to the last post. Please don't make unsubstantiated claims. I ask you again to indicate what exactly bothers you in the latest version of the rating. Or don't say anything at all.

P.s. By the way, the player who took last place and was 1000 days behind the leader will receive a rating close to zero. And this is also visible if you put the values in the table.