Still, I prefer the idea with the oscillator. And for the "Van Kanighem Memorial" tournament, I suggest calculating based on it. If it's not too much trouble, please send me the detailed formulas in a private message; I will calculate them myself. Because, in my opinion, a rating that takes into account both the completion time and the number of participants is more objective.

-- This is what is written in our rules ---
As part of an experiment, official Heroes 3 tournaments by VDV_forever, starting with the current Best of Best tournament, will calculate a purely game-based rating of the participants in these tournaments. This rating will take into account the strength with which the participant completes the main task of the tournament map (for example, speedrun), while this rating will not affect the points earned by the participants in these tournaments (for example, the points earned in the Mercury competition; this rating will not affect them).
----------------------------------------
I cannot recalculate a bunch of real examples for you.
I'm trying one last time to show the distortions due to taking into account the places taken. Even without taking into account the aging factor.

Tournament 1
Player1 - 1 day - 1*100/1=100
Player2 - 100 days - 1*100/100=1
Player3 - 101 days - 1*100/101=0.99

Tournament 2
Player4 - 1 day - 1*100/1=100
Player5 - 10 days - 1*100/10=10
Player6 - 11 days - 1*100/11=9.09

Total according to my system
Player1 - 100
Player4 - 100
Player5 - 10
Player6 - 9.09
Player2 - 1
Player3 - 0.99

And if we take into account the second component:
Tournament 1
Player1 -> 100-100/(3-1)*(1-1)=100
Player2 -> 100-100/(3-1)*(2-1)=50
Player3 -> 100-100/(3-1)*(3-1)=0
What the oscillator will give:
Player1 -> (100+100)/2=100
Player2 -> (1+50)/2=25.5
Player3 -> (0.99+0)/2=0.495

Tournament 2
Player4 -> 100-100/(3-1)*(1-1)=100
Player5 -> 100-100/(3-1)*(2-1)=50
Player6 -> 100-100/(3-1)*(3-1)=0
Oscillator
Player4 -> (100+100)/2=100
Player5 -> (10+50)/2=30
Player6 -> (9.09+0)/2=4.545

Total with the oscillator
Player1 - 100
Player4 - 100
Player5 - 30
Player2 - 25.5
Player6 - 4.545
Player3 - 0.495

Player2 overtook Player6 only on the simple basis
that he took 2nd place in the tournament, although he performed worse than the leader
100 times worse. And Player6 took third place
in his tournament, but performed worse than his leader only 10 times. But Player2 has a rating 5 times higher than Player6.
Is this an indicator of the real strength of Player2 and Player6???
And why does Player2 have such a higher rating than Player3,
if, in reality, they play practically the same???

And look at how the total rating is distributed without taking into account the oscillator.

Added after 12 minutes

Now, to the point:
You missed one fundamental point - how to deal with the case when two players finished at the same time, but received different places according to the second qualifying criterion (total skills, points, etc.). Example - Vbn and Kyle in the BB rating. This issue needs to be resolved, taking into account the real results of the players, because there is an obvious flaw.

I agree - there is a flaw, but
1. It corresponds to the stated rules, that the rating takes into account the strength of the game in completing the main task of the tournament. And the closer the result is to the leader, the better. There was no mention of the second qualifying criterion.
2. I believe that the fact that Kyle lost a few rating points for the second criterion is a smaller flaw than the one I give in my examples. Where approximately equal players receive a difference in rating not by a couple of points, but by FIVE times.
3. Since my rating works in parallel with the awarding of grails according to VDV, Kyle will still receive more grails than the player who finished at the same speed as him, but lost according to the second, NON-MAIN criterion.