We’re in the process of fixing that.
With regard to WinTD, that’s excellent news.
The other issues I mentioned would still cause me to not FIDE-rate the US Open.
That would break all of the routines that have been written to automate reporting of results on the US Chess website. So, no, that won’t be happening.
You might try at least paying lip service to the moderator, and staying on topic.
It is on topic, I’m sorry you can’t see that.
The question of whether the US Open should be rated by US Chess is on topic? I sorrowfully admit that I can’t see that - since US Chess does not pay any fees (rating, correction or otherwise) for its own national events. 
Nor can I see the wisdom in having relaxed my Forums filters. Thankfully, I can cure that last bit of myopia on my own.
I suggest you go back and re-read what I said a little more closely. I never brought up the question about whether the US Open should be rated by US Chess.
I read this post, and its follow-ups. The “similar argument” you made there gives direct rise to the question of whether the US Open should be rated by US Chess. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can handle reading your “argumentation” beyond that. I’ll leave that to hardier constitutions than mine.
Anything not related to the US Open doesn’t belong in this topic.
Allow me to pile onto Mr. Reed’s comment about the excellent news regarding WinTD support for FIDE events. That would be a most welcome addition.
Any further discussion which is not about the US Open will be moved to a new topic, along with some of the previous posts.
I’ve created a new topic, Reasons for not USCF rating events, for discussion of Micah Smith’s contention that the arguments which have been given for not submitting the US Open for FIDE rating are also reasons for not submitting other tournaments for rating by US Chess. Any further discussion along those lines should go in the new topic.
I’ve also moved two posts to a new topic created by Alex Relyea, Registering Players with FIDE.
This topic is for discussion of the 2016 US Open, and the US Open in general.
I would be surprised if FIDE were to accept such a report (with the fast games filtered out) anyway.
Just imagine what the crosstable would look like that FIDE sees. In the case of the US Open, maybe 30% of the players would appear to have skipped rounds 1-6, playing only in rounds 7-9. Yet they would all have scores ranging anywhere from 0 through 6 going into round 7. FIDE would wonder what kind of screwy pairing system was used, and would likely balk at rating the event.
Bill Smythe
FIDE accepts such filtered reports all the time. You just can’t offer norms at such a tournament anymore, but even that restriction is a relatively recent development.
What is listed in place of the filtered games? Full-point byes, half-point byes, and zero-point byes, depending on the actual results of the filtered games?
Or are they all listed as zeroes, in which case the pairings in the last rounds would appear extremely bogus? For example, in round 7, a player who had “missed” the first six rounds (but who had actually scored 4-2 in those games) might get paired against a player who had played in the slower schedule and was listed as 4-2. It would appear that a 4-pointer had been paired against a 0-pointer.
Bill Smythe
See the FIDE crosstable for the Under 2400 section of the 2013 World Open as an example of how it handles tournaments with filtered games. This particular section offered 4-day and 3-day schedules, both of which had time controls that were ineligible for FIDE rating. (You might need to set up a FIDE Online Arena account to view this link, if you don’t already have one. It’s free, though, and is necessary to view many older records.)