Okay, the two things I've been wanting to address before we dive into B03 testing.
The first isn't directly related to the construction of the format, it's more organisational-ish, but still relevant:
At one point (no idea if it was on reddit or DN) you said something like "This is very much your format." and "If it was my format, I wouldn't have broken up MHHO" (not your exact words obvz).
"This is very much your format": Don't get me wrong, this is infinitely better than the opposite, which would be you claiming that it's equally "your" format, then guilting me for not including you enough until you've almost entirely pushed me out of the project, then guilting me more for not being involved enough. (Long story, don't ask) Don't do that BTW. If you did, I would use all my funds just to go to Australia, tie you up, and kick you in the balls continuously for a full month...
Anyway, I certainly appreciate you recognizing that I originally came up with the idea of making this format. (In fact, I kinda want you to do that. I'm full of myself that way.) However it's not entirely just my format, even if you consider me as the sole founder (heh, sole). Originally I didn't intend to turn this into a proper project, it wasn't until you showed obvious interest that it turned from a random brainfart into an actual format. If I'm the main founder, you're anything from the main tester to the co-founder. It's ultimately up to what you want to call yourself, though knowing you you probably don't really care eitherways (if you don't care, just call yourself main tester). This whole first part is primarily for me, all you need to do is listen read and (pretend to) care.
"If it was my format, I wouldn't have broken up MHHO": Incorrect. Every person doesn't just have one innate format they can create (though the idea of each person being born with their personal format like some sort of animal companion would make a fun premise for a really silly book). And even if it was your format, you couldn't really say that. "If this format was built on a different set of premises, MHHO wouldn't have been broken up." would be correct. This applies to me too. If I had started the format with the premise of "go through all sets chronologically, ban everything blatant, keep whatever aslong as it makes for a fun format", I would've kept MHHO. I really like Order, possibly as much as you like Heavy (I'm fairly certain you'd put your dick in Heavy if given the chance). I liked MHHO the same way I like Vintage, but I can still recognize that it doesn't confirm to Modern's philosophy whatsoever. It's important to recognize that this format isn't based on some personal card-by-card judgement by me, but on clearly defined guidelines (though there's always going to be some judgement calls involved). In fact, the entire purpose of the format is to not be some arbitrary mess like modern YGO, but based on proper, consistently applied guidelines. This is why having guidelines is so important, because they are a way of taking something arbitrary/judgement based, and making it non-arbitrary by turning it into a guideline that is then equally applied to everything.
The second thing is about staple guidelines:
Way back in our reddit logs, I wrote this little paragraph:
One thing I want to actively avoid is "unhealthy staples". Basically, I want to allow staples to exists, but distinguish between "healthy" and "unhealthy" ones. MST is an example of a healthy staple; it's a flexible out card, helps prevent degenerate stuff rather than enabling it, and isn't a must-play in every deck. Something like Witch of the Black Forest could become an unhealthy staple because you're forced to run it otherwise you're actively gimping yourself. This is one reason why I want to avoid FTKs, as they can create a situation where everyone is forced to main Veiler all the time simply because it is needed against FTKs, thus turning Veiler into an unhealthy staple. In other words, I'd like to avoid creating a Force of Will-style situation.
I loosely touch on a few of the relevant aspects of healthy vs unhealthy staples. Specifically that complete "must main in every deck" cards are nearly always unhealthy (the format currently doesn't have any cards like that IMO, the closest is probably Jinzo, and CotH as a result of that. Maybe Fissure/Noble, but those are the only good removal so it's K).
Before I go further into that, I want to go back to the argument about staples we had on DN a few days ago. After thinking it over again, I believe your "but all staples are must-plays in every deck if a staple is a card useful in any deck" isn't accurate even in the context of a very strict staple definition. That's just way too simplified. If it was true, the best and only (therefore T0) deck in every generic format would be all of the staples in the format thrown together. That's actually a similar argument to one you refuted against me way back. Yknow the time when I brought up this justification for archetypes - "if all the good cards in the game are generic, they can all go into the same deck" - and you refuted it by explaining how it's an oversimplification, and how "all the good cards" is usually a deck (Jund/Keeper), but isn't the only deck by a long shot. Staples are similar, sure Fissure is a staple (respectively removal is), but 40 Fissure isn't a very good deck, and certainly not the only good one. Saying that all staple aka "useful in almost any deck" cards are auto-includes completely ignores card ratios and deck coherency. Deckbuilding is so much more complex than that.
Oh yea, on the topic of different staple definitions: I think a broad "magic-esque" definition is the only correct definition to apply to this format. This is because the format aims to become diverse enough for that definition to apply the same way it applies to Magic. The format should be looked at through the lense you want to have it seen through once it's done (there's probably a better way to word that sentence, but you get the point).
There's a bunch more things for me to go into regarding staples as "generally useful cards", but I'll leave it at this for now and give you a chance to respond.