So today's contest was declared unrated because of a mistake in the statement/test preparation for problem A. Of course, I was upset, given that I was doing relatively well even after the re-judge. (Sad to say, I ragequit and went to do work)

It seems like the biggest problem in a case like this is when some participants get WA after 30 minutes, receiving a big penalty due to the re-judge, as opposed to people who got it right in the first few minutes. (see here). Aside from this, I don't see any major issues coming from the re-judge that call for making the round unrated.

In my view it looks like a simple and easy fix for this would just be to shift all the submissions' time penalty calculations that were rejected in the re-judging to the time that they would have been at from the start of the round. What I mean by this is, for example, if some user solves problem A at time 00:03, and the rejudge gives his or her solution WA on 00:30, and then this user solves it given another 2 minutes at 00:32, then the end result score penalty calculation should have the +1 penalty for wrong answer and assume that the user has solved this at 00:05 (3 minutes first submission, then took 2 minutes to fix error — so shift to 5 minutes).

Then at the final judging the scores will closely reflect results that would have occurred as if no error had happened in the first place, and the great penalty discrepancy would no longer be an issue.

Of course, we can't change the result or status of today's round (especially considering that the case in which the triangle direction could have been reversed was not clarified in the statement), but this might be a good way to handle similar situations in the future. What do you think?