I can see why the submission wasn't considered a "substantial run". It's 1-1 done in nearly 2 seconds. The level isn't even remotely complex. I would have used a better level as the example. But being condescending to the staff isn't going to do you any favors.
"The game isn't finished yet"
and there ya go
Leaderboards for games that aren't finished are dumb. Be patient.
The site already has issues with people who barely play games making giant empty boards with a 2 second 1-1 and then moderating for a bunch of other users who play for more than two seconds. I don't think asking someone to show a little bit of proof they've played a game for more than 2 seconds is unreasonable. Maybe it's inconsistent with a previous request, and maybe that request shouldn't have been accepted either.
Should we set a standard where users play a game for 2 seconds and then moderate boards? - I think most people would agree that we shouldn't set that standard. It's not in writing, and it probably should be.
I don't think asking you to provide evidence you've played for more than 2 seconds is at all unreasonable. You're welcome to resubmit, and it will be processed in the queue. I apologize that the game request form got as far behind as it did, but that's not an excuse to accept everything that comes through.