[0 carbon]

1. Sections are max 50 tables. But when a Survivor tourney reduces from 51 to 50 tables, for example, two sections still remain. Why not use the minimum number of sections?
Keeping the same number of sections prevents the best players from playing each other. The same is true even in larger tourneys when 8 sections reduce to 7, and so on.
Worse, some sections may lose more players than others, leading to a reduced player pool to play against. In a worst case, one section may only have 1 table while another has 50. Or you might have an empty section!

2. Where there are multiple sections, players should be seeded after each round into sections, e.g. best pair to 1NS in section 1, 2nd best to 1NS in section 2, etc. until all remaining players have a place.
For best fairness, you could assign the first set of pairs to sections 1 up to n, then reverse the order for second set, ie to sections n down to 1, and continue.
This is fairer to players as all sections have the complete spread of abilities (or at least achievement).

3. It would be nice if a ranking were directly displayed, e.g. 299/750, for each pair each round.

[5 maj 13]

There's some tension between your first two points. Just sayin'

[0 carbon]

5 maj 13, on 2018-November-06, 16:36, said:

There's some tension between your first two points. Just sayin'

Is consistent - objective is to have everyone playing everyone with a mix of levels.I would prefer just one BIG section for all Swiss or Survivor tourneys from start to finish.