Military Parade - Low Tier Escalation

GenPanzer, on May 08 2013 - 15:44, said: After looking at the tournament pages more, I am even more confused.
So, Tier 3 Escalation is listed as "Low Tier Escalation [Phase 1]" and starts on May 10th. Tier 4 Escalation is listed as "Low Tier Escalation [Phase 2]" and starts on May 11th. If these 2 tournaments are part of the same competition, but are different phases of the competition, then how can these happen on alternating days, when each starts one day after the other?
Or does Tier 3 Escalation start on May 10th and on May 12th it escalates to tier 4 (perhaps with the same rules as the Tier 4 Escalation), which is also when the Tier 5 Escalation starts, making the Tier 4 Escalation that starts on May 11th to jump to tier 5 on May 13th, etc.? Therefore making the escalation process contained within each tournament, up to 3 tiers (or does this go higher)? This would seem to make the most sense, but would not explain the Phase numbers and the categories they are using for each tournament. Again, they seem to be describing 2 distinct competitions (high tier and low tier), each having 3 phases or tournaments.
I feel I am not understanding something here and would really appreciate it if lord_farquad would clarify matters. Perhaps spell it out a bit more using examples.
While I'm at it, "The winner of each round will be determined as the first to 1 victory." seems to not make sense since it appears that the rounds will be a round robin style of play, 15 min apart (10 min for battle + 5 min break). So if the first battle ends in a draw, those 2 teams aren't going to play each other again, so the "first to 1 victory" can't happen.
EDIT: I just had this thought about the self contained escalation process that I said above "would seem to make the most sense". The flaw in this design is that the cutoff for the Lower and Higher Tier tournaments is 5/6 respectively. So the Lower Tier 5 Escalation would in turn transition into a Higher Tier 6 and 7 tournament, which goes against the original logic that assume self containment makes the most sense.
Dammit, am I over thinking this?