New WF48 Astana Rules approved by Bill: Degrees of honors

[johnbrvc]

Is your feature request related to a problem?
This feature is required by mandate of Bill Poucher for WF48 in Astana, and going forward. The idea is to eliminate "B" by creating new degrees of "honors" in the rankings.
...

Feature Description:
This is copied from SysOps Call Agenda for WFAstana:
New World Finals Rules, approved by Bill and published 17 May 2024:

• At the ICPC World Finals Awards Ceremony (“Awards Ceremony”), the highest ranked team will be recognized as the ICPC World Finals Champions and will receive the World Champion Trophy and plaques.
• Teams finishing in the top four positions will be awarded Gold Medals. Those teams finishing fifth through eighth place will be awarded Silver Medals. Those teams finishing ninth through twelfth place will receive Bronze Medals. All medalists will receive plaques as well.
  • [Note: there is no allowance for “additional bronze medals” – no “value of B” (as per @clevengr)]
• The highest ranked team from each ICPC Region will be recognized with the appropriate title: ICPC World Finals Africa and Arab Champions, ICPC World Finals Asia East Champions, etc.
  • [Note: each Region citation MUST start with the words “ICPC World Finals…” followed by the Region name from CMS (except for “Arabia” being replaced by “Arab”), and end with the word “Champions” (as per @clevengr)]
• Teams competing in the ICPC World Finals are eligible for Championship Honors awards (defined as follows):
  • Highest Honors: All medalist teams together with all teams solving the same number of problems as the minimum number of problems solved by any medalist team (the 12th place team for WF, but really: (#gold+#silver+#bronze)th place.)
  • High Honors: All teams solving one fewer problem than the minimum number of problems solved by any medalist team.
  • Honors: All teams not receiving Highest Honors or High Honors solving the same number of problems or more than the median scoring team.
  • Honorable Mention: All teams solving fewer than the number of problems solved by the median scoring team.
• We need to ensure that the above “awards” are correctly described/listed/awarded in the results.tsv file.

...

Have you considered other ways to accomplish the same thing?
This is something brand new - it could be done by hand I suppose.
...

Do you have any specific suggestions for how your feature would be implemented in PC^2?
In pc2/exports/ccs/ResultsFile.java, the methods createTSVFileLines() (and also, createCSVFilesLines() - which is not currently used, but will be), call getAwardMedal(). The implementation has to be changed to add enum categories other than just GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE, RANKED and HONORABLE. The 3 "Honors" categories, "HIGHEST_HONORS", "HIGH_HONORS" and "HONORS" have to be added. In addition, the cutoffs for each of these categories has to be figured out based on the rules above. We know the medals are handled already by the FinalizeData object. The HONORS things have to be done separately. Around line 296 is where the decisions have to be made about the new rankings.
...

Additional context:
...

[johnbrvc]

The following came from a Slack message from @clevengr:
I have followed up on my assigned task of getting Bill's clarifications on the several "corner cases" associated with the "new WF Rules" (regarding "honors").
Here are the answers:

• Empty Highest Honors" (i.e. if no additional teams solve the same number of problems as the lowest bronze medalist team).
  • Bill's response: in this case the only teams receiving "Highest Honors" would be the medalist teams.
• Empty High Honors" (i.e. if no team solves (exactly) one less than the lowest Bronze team)
  • Bill's response: "If there is no team with 1 less problem solved than medalist performance, then there are no High Honors. There are still Honors."
• Empty Honorable Mentions: (i.e., the extreme case where the number solved by the median team is the least number solved by any team.)
  • Bill's response: "Then, there are no Honorable Mentions".

I'm not aware of any other "corner cases", so my impression is that we now have a clear, complete set of rules which should be applied.