Ok, so that post in the stickied thread refers to such runs not needing the version screenshot anymore, which was pretty nice. However shortly after, the corresponding announcement on the Discord specifically clarified that "If you do provide video or are below the threshold, then you must show the version at the end of the run or it will not be accepted."

However, I just checked the actual rules today and this line was new: "Runs above the threshold only need to provide proof of IGT. If you do have video proof, we recommend also including proof of version." I'm very much alright with that if I got that right. I guess it's important for them that videos are paired with the right version, but you can always go back and take a screenshot of it to include.

It's exactly because video is already optional for those runs that enforcing the video requirements on them doesn't make sense. How can a submission with a recording be considered less legitimate than a submission without it? And sure, those users can just submit it without the recording, but why would you want to incentivize that?

This seems like a simple oversight in the rule wording that leads to a silly situation: If someone submits a run above the 1h40m threshold, including screenshots of the IGT and game version, everything is valid. However, if they also just want to include a video of it that they happen to have recorded as a bonus (maybe from a casual stream) and it doesn't meet some of the requirements, suddenly it's invalid.

A fix could be as simple as these changes: "All videos must include the following:" to "A valid video proof must include the following:" and "If you don't have video proof for above the threshold" to "If you don't have a valid video proof for above the threshold"