The 360p required in the registration policy are accurate.

The POH developer team added a feature to the POH code that currently alerts the submitter that the video they are trying to upload is less than 360p.
For this reason, videos with 352 or less are not being uploaded to the registry. That can be corroborated by seeing that there are no more challenges for it.

This new function in the code shows that 352 is not 360. Obviously the POH algorithm itself says that 352 is not 360 by alerting the submitter of this situation and preventing the video from uploading.

This is also understood by the 24 jurors who voted in the cases 615-667-673-674-690-702-721-722 saying that 352 does not reach the 360 required.

The "evidence" presented by "0xd733cc4df0c8d6bb2d9e4215ae64cb02812b50fb" is lip service trying to confuse jurors without solid arguments. 

The jurors said: 

"Unfortunately the challenge justifications submitted by both '0xF821...dA57' and '0xb9a8...999b are correct in that the video submitted is not the minimum 360p quality as required by the Kleros guidelines which are outlined in the 'Primary Documents' link on this page. 
The submitted should re-take the video with a higher quality and resubmit for approval. As the quality does not meet the standards as required the request to register should NOT be accepted."

"Incorrect submission. The video don´t have at least 360p.
The submitted video is 352p which is lower than the required 360p. This violates the rule #4 of POH registry policy. 
Both technical evidence and case law (615-667-673-674) indicate that the required 360p are not achieved.
Therefore the request to register should not be accepted.
As it currently stands, the policy doesn't allow 352px video submission."

"Submitted video is not 360p which is the required minimum resolution for acceptance per the PoH rules.
Submitter's defense argument citing the Snapshot proposal is irrelevant for the purposes of this dispute, since the the profile is being judged under the PoH submission policy that was in place at the time of the original submission and the time the profile was formally challenged.
Regardless of the perceived unfairness of the policy in place and the apparent ambiguity of the policy's language, responsibility ultimately lies with Democracy Earth and the PoH governance community for fixing any apparent flaws with the submission requirements/rules. Kleros jurors can only be expected to interpret and enforce the rules as they are written - without making subjective allowances and exceptions based on apparent logical flaws or technical issues that they had no hand in creating in the first place. To do so is far outside the jurisdiction of the Kleros courts and would represent a far greater breach of trust and professionalism than the alleged injustice that is being claimed here by the submitter. 
In others words: it's not about whether the submitter is arguably human - it is about whether the submitter complied with the submission requirements. Compliance with the given rules is the metric by which PoH assesses and ultimately determines whether a profile is legitimate or not. Were there to be room for jurors pass through profiles despite not following the given rules it would negate the purpose of PoH creating such rules in the first place and would essentially be a violation of the responsibility that PoH has delegated to the Kleros jurors. Thus for Kleros jurors to adjudicate based on any other implied standard is demonstrably improper.
While I am sympathetic to the claims put forth by the submitter and agree that the PoH policy as it is currently written warrants revision, based on prior case precedent and the prevailing interpretation of the rules up until now I am thus required to vote to reject the profile for registration  in order to ensure consistency and fair application to all parties who have previously had disputes over the same technical issue being debated here.
Thus, my vote is "No.""