Inconsistent screening !!

Hi dears:

This photo (https://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2017-12/1000276.jpg) was rejected for:

1st screener: Second opinion. Incorrect or not sufficient information was provided. Incorrect exposure - too dark. Main object is not sharp. No reason to be composite. Just dark.

2nd screener: I agree with first screener.

1# "Incorrect or not sufficient information was provided"; I've filled all sections, sorry this "incorrect or" is so incosistent

2# "Incorrect exposure - too dark"; since when we talk about "too dark" for pictures meant for composite category ?

3# I may understand sharpness verdict, even if edges are clearly jagged.

4# "No reason to be composite. Just dark."; and again - are you kidding ?? - this one is inconsistent. Can someone count how many "just too dark" are accepted in Graphics category, here's the link for it: https://www.airplane-pictures.net/aviation-graphics.php?pg=1&order=screen_timestamp

3 inconsistent reasons, could this be a mistake with another one's photo. Otherwise, this is a kind of contradiction against Graphics category policy..., just take a look a it, I have already some there.

By the way, it's not the 1st time for inconsistency, another PURE Graphic photo of mine was accepted in "Main Category" and not Graphics, here is it: https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/908362/ei-epf-ryanair-boeing-737-800/

Regards

Is there something wrong with forum's page, after posting this with some hours, I saw (2) besides the title of my post, but when I enter to it, I found only my comment, I guess by posting this it will be (3) with only 2 comments. The same thing with this post, it's marked (4) but by entering the link you'll see only 3 comments in total:

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/forum/3957/name-of-screener/