@Gobble.
1) Fair solutions but, as you see, I like to keep things simple. So, writing into the rules about when, exactly, a slow play is "deliberate" and when it becomes "unacceptable" doesn't look so simple. We want that anyone, who can log in at least once a day, signs up for the Tourney. If he starts reading on the rulebook that his slow play may be judged as "unacceptable" according to some complicated rules (and/or discretionally by the Director), he could change his mind about joining.
Also setting fair penalties isn't so simple. And even if it was, the fairest penalty is never better than a game that has come to its natural conclusion. When a Match doesn't start due to a missing player, the arbitral score: bye=6 is fair, but it's not better than a Match actually played.
Further...It's a lot of work for fasces! Patrol all games, asking why a game is slow to both competitors...waiting for both replies...evaluate them...typing decisions...hearing complaints...It's not simple at all and it requires time to spend. Rules that involve the Director's discretion are heavy for the Director! I'd keep only the one about pauses: the Director usually grants them, unless the same player is asking too many pauses too close or too long, and Director suspects an abuse. That's why I want to hear from fasces about my proposals: it's his time!
2) ok
3) if France "can't win fast enough because is slowly grinding towards St.P", it means that Austria was able to stop him there and everywhere else. So Austria is not that bad, no? A draw in 1910 is fair, I think. Actually, since Austria starts with a little advantage, a draw is a good result for France. As in Chess a draw is a good result for Blacks. The player who's France in this game and who was able to fill the gap, probably in the other game as Austria would be able to keep the advantage or to increase it. So the set would end 3-1, that is the exact measure of the skill's difference. One player is stronger, but not that stronger.
Reading this story from the other point of view, it's: Austria wasn't so good to keep his advantage but was good enough to reject all assaults and to keep the game balanced for 10 years. Stop. We're talking about a game exceptionally long. Austria was not that bad. The Tour must go on. Force draw.
France did well filling the gap, but not so well to win, and gets 1. Austria did bad wasting his advantage, but not so bad to lose, and gets 1. The other 4 games of the Match will tell who's the stronger and how much. I'd bet on the player who was France here, hoping the draw was not just luck.