I'm sorry to say, but I'm afraid that this branch could not be acceptable anymore, since it results very similar to the
fastest-completion branch. The
Movie Rules state that "Arbitrary goal choices need to offer new TAS material to be accepted", and the
Judge Guidelines state that "A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game.". Note that while we already have an
active publication for "all dungeons" branch, we can't reject the fastest-completion submission for similarity, as fastest-completion works as the trunk from which all the possible additional branches are originated.
I previously accepted movies for "all dungeons" branch because it was still faster than the RTA WR for any%, so it was still beating all known records while being enough entertaining for the Moons standards; there weren't reasons to reject
those submissions back then. I believe that this specific kind of situation is unprecedented.
Still, I want to give this movie a chance and ask for more opinions, even though I personally think that it won't ultimately affect the outcome. So I'll start it by sharing the results of my comparisons between the
two submissions that we currently have in the queue:
The first 40% of this movie matches with the first 50% of the fastest-completion movie. Also, the rest of the movie doesn't feature much different content: the differences are mostly the result of minor route adjustments. The only parts that could be really considered unique, that are the dungeons not seen in the fastest-completion movie, consist in less than the 20% of this movie. Note that I'm doing the comparisons basing only on gameplay segments, so this doesn't count the cutscenes, dialogue, overworld travel, and loading times.
So far I can't see any precedent poiting that this degree of uniqueness is sufficent for warranting an extra branch (that this, anything that isn't fastest-completion or full-completion).
By the way, I want to note that the author did nothing wrong, as this kind of situation could not have been predicted with certainty, and in any case this submission is going to be useful for setting a new precedent, so it's still welcomed.