Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

1) Did Redwhite violate the rules of fair play?
2) Under which rule was a rematch ordered?

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question automatically follows.

Here is an attempt at an answer, although not entirely unambiguous, because the concept of fairness is still based on subjectivity:
After the actions in question, the game as such was effectively ruined in that match.
There was neither unfair play nor fair play, there was no game at all.
Instead, there was a fixation of an infinite resource advantage per turn, obtained through a subjective interpretation of the flaws in the rules.
And no actions by the opponent could prevent this.
The game implies competition, until the very end, until the game objective is achieved, equivalent to the victory of one of the parties, or until someone surrenders.
But where was the competition?
And since there was no game, there is no point in talking about the result.
What caused the game to turn into a farce? It was due to actions that were supposedly not prohibited, although their legitimacy is highly questionable even from the point of view of the rules in effect at that time.
But what is undeniable is that the actions are equivalent to entering codes, which is prohibited in Multiplayer.
And even in Single Player, this is marked as cheating if the result is recorded in the table.

Therefore, recording this "victory" within the framework of the tournament would be unfair.
Or, to put it another way, presenting the result of a non-game as the result of a game is unfair, no matter how you look at it.
Everything else is just sophistry