Is approval of a run singularly based on time of submission (runs are approved in order of submission)? Or are there other factors? If it is solely based on time of submission, I have noticed that this has not been consistently adhered to.

There's no algorithm, human beings who volunteer their time verify the runs submitted. How they pick which run to verify is up to them. Someone could opt to verify a run submitted the same day opposed to one that's a week+ old for example. Is it generally best practice to try and verify oldest stuff first? Yes. Does that mean it always happens that way? No. Perhaps there's an older 100% run but the person only has time to watch an Any% run which is newer for example. Also if multiple runs are in queue from the same person there's little reason to review the older one. So if a runner has a backlog of like 3 PBs waiting to be verified it's usually easiest to verify the newest first then the previous ones after just so they show up in the person's run history.

I am aware of each afore mentioned factor at play. This was merely intended to be an inquiry, not a complaint towards those who volunteer their time to verify said runs.

An inquiry of what? I simply provided you examples of other factors that go into verifying runs because you asked. If you're already aware of these factors then you know that runs are not reviewed based on submission time which was your initial question...

Runs are broadly reviewed in order of submission, though occasionally some runs are approved ahead of the strict queue order for a couple reasons. If a run is below the top 30/15 threshold where video proof isn't required, it doesn't need to be scrutinized as closely, and so those can be approved even if the person verifying doesn't have two hours to spare. The other thing that can happen is if the verifier already saw the run happen live, then that also makes it easier to verify in a shorter period of time. I hope that helps.

Thank you for the responses. Both were helpful.