Why should a player from a less popular Tournament have a lower rating if, for example, they play very well and complete the same starting save, but on a different Tournament, performing significantly better than the leader from a popular Tournament???

Unfortunately, in my opinion, you have long gone beyond the bounds of common sense and are so blinded by your calculation method that you are unable to understand the rational comments of other players if these comments do not fit into your scheme...

On what basis do you compare players from different Tournaments, even if they played on the same map? Each result should be evaluated exclusively within the framework of one Tournament, regardless of all other conditions. The rating is the sum of all results.

Following your logic, you simply must compare all results with the result of the absolute leader on a given map, i.e., even the winner of another Tournament should receive their rating points in comparison with the result of the winner of the first Tournament.

In other words, why should the winner of the second Tournament receive the same number of points as the winner of the first on the same map if the second completed it, say, twice as poorly? This question is based solely on your principles of argumentation. And, paraphrasing your phrase, I will ask the question like this:

Question: "Why should the winner of a less popular Tournament receive the maximum rating if, for example, they play very poorly and complete the same starting save, but on a different Tournament, performing significantly worse than the leader from a popular Tournament???"

If you say that the winner receives the maximum number of points because they took first place, then you thereby admit that the place matters regardless of the result. In this case, second place should also matter. Otherwise, if you deny the importance of the place taken, it will be interesting to get your answer to the question above.