After discussion with senior staff, ICC and Chess.com tournaments will remain in the order they are uploaded in, which appears to reflect their internal tie breaks, other online events will be put into score group/rating order like OTB events.
Actually (this is the reason I don’t like problems like this) my logic missed a step.
1 has 1 e
3 has 2 es
5 has 1 e
7 has 2 es
8,9 &10 all just have 1 es
11 has three es
12 has 2 es
so 1,3,5,7,12
I was looking at the sequence of e es e es e es etc
so revised it would be
1,3,5,7,8,12
i missed a step 
In the example that started this thread, it wasn’t just the tiebreaks. The last 5 players in the list weren’t even in score order! There was a 5.0 near the end of the list, below some players with 2.0 or less.
It appeared to me that most of the list was in score order (and who knows what the tiebreaks were), but the last five (probably late entrants, I would guess) were tacked on after the fact.
If an online event is run by an external organizer (like CCA), but run via ICC, is that considered an ICC tournament (in which case the crosstable would apparently appear in upload order) or a CCA tournament (in which case I assume the crosstable would appear in score order)?
Bill Smythe
It depends on the affiliate ID for the event, the IDs for ICC and Chess.com are the only ones that will use pairing number order.
I would assume that if CCA runs an event on ICC, they’d submit it under the CCA affiliate ID, not the ICC affiliate ID.
Excellent! Thanks for doing this Mike.
Very interesting thread. One of my partners in our online tournaments called and told me “hey we need to make our tiebreaks the same as whatever online server we use - let the online server determine the tiebreaks - less confusing.”
Well then some parents look at the MSA results and see something not at all matching the online server’s rankings.
Which are naturally different from the swisssys tiebreaks actually used. The point is, I am not sure how feasible
“conformity” is.