Totally! We're always willing to elaborate if needed, we just don't want to re-adjudicate our decisions over and over. Word of god may inform our decision but isn't considered to be canon evidence purely on its own (probably for obvious reasons?) This is a more simplistic version of all the things we considered, but what it came to when we boiled it down was:

Book Crowley has a canon sex (or lack of) but no gender declared, can only be inferred as male presenting or identified, so as one of the people in this thread said and we agreed - he is ineligible.

Show Aziraphale has neither canon sex or gender declared, can only be inferred as male (albeit, perhaps a feminine male) presenting or identified therefore also ineligible. It's purely word of god here for the purposes of our criteria, basically.

Show Crowley has neither canon sex or gender declared, but presents mostly as male and sometimes as female. Once we examined everything, we decided he can be reasonably inferred as male (so we do understand your concerns) or genderqueer identified, and word of god further inclines us to think genderqueer is indeed a valid interpretation of canon despite female presentation* being rare/only happening twice. Essentially we can't rule him solely in or out based on canon (this is what withinadream meant by edge case and why we're paying particular attention to the other people in those nominations, in case there are specific relationships we feel somehow cross back out of scope), so he falls within the scope of the genderqueer rule and our stance of 'we're not interested in defining gender for participants'. We're assuming good faith that anyone nominating Crowley wants to explore a genderqueer interpretation, and that his relationships with other female or genderqueer characters feel somehow sapphic/femslashy to them (I haven't looked at the tagset yet today so possibly GO has been approved in my absence, but so far I feel like what I've seen in the queue matches with that assumption, for what that's worth.)

*Obviously not everyone interprets those scenes the same way as they're brief, and a reasonably inferred male character wearing female clothes twice isn't often going to be criteria for eligibility in this exchange, if that's concerning anyone. But we looked at some of the range of how people were interpreting those scenes, how word of god interprets those scenes, and things people said about tone and seriousness and influences from the wider context of the book's definition of sex, and we think it's reasonable to consider them important in this case without reading Neil's twitter.

Hopefully that at least explains it further and maybe also addresses some of your concerns, and we totally understand why people who lean towards a male interpretation of Crowley won't be wanting to nominate/request/offer him for this exchange. We just ask them to let people who do see genuine femslash interpretations there get on with doing so. And while we stand by this as an application of the current rules, people are always welcome to give us feedback or suggest tweaks post-round if they think this highlights a gap in the rules that we might (or might not, obviously, but we're always happy to listen) address in the rules of future rounds.