I don't see anything on that page with gives you, the OSI, the legal right to declare things as being opensource or not. You categorically stated it wasn't opensource. Had you stated that in your opinion it wasn't opensource it would be different.

The process I underwent for The License Zero Reciprocal Public License last year, and the process described to me by participants affiliated with OSI during those discussions, did not match the process described on the page you linked at the time, especially its "What Will Happen" section. At least one participating member of the board seemed to be learning, as well.

Best I can tell, the process page was prepared by a former board member pushing to reform the process and make it transparent. It was and remains aspirational. But those aspirations aren't shared by remaining participants with sway.

The most straightforward summary of the process I received was that discussion proceeds on the mailing list until it reaches consensus, and then it's entirely within the board's discretion what it does or does not do. It was also written repeatedly that the board may not approve professionally drafted, novel, OSD-conformant licenses, for unspecified policy reasons.

Is it your companies official stance that they have the sole right to determine what is OPEN SOURCE code? From an outsider who reads this phrase in countless contexts, this feels like an incredibly naive and non-legally binding opinion