Submission still fully complies with the policy and should remain in the TCR
We should keep it in the TCR, because there is no policy stating that it should be removed. Eidoo (EDO) and pTokens (PNT) are two separate tokens on the Ethereum Blockchain, so they should both be listed as separate tokens in the TCR. The old token is called Eidoo with ticker EDO, while the new token is called pTokens with ticker PNT. So, there is nothing duplicate about these two tokens the requester is referring to. Additionally, both tokens have an unique token contract address. If you want to mark specific tokens as "old tokens", you should propose the addition of a "token swapped" badge on https://forum.kleros.io/. But fully removing them from the token curated list is not what should be done.
The policy rule I was referring to is not only about mainnet swapping, note how "with non-ethereum chains" is between brackets, thus the sentence can be read with and without including that part. The TCR policy actually literally mentions that tokens should NOT be denied listing based on token creation date, token swap status (with non-ethereum chains), use case or token activity. The data of this TCR submission is still correct, as the logo, name, ticker, and token contract address, still all refer to this token. Therefore, it should remain in the TCR.
And last, but not least, the comment of Ferit on Telegram is irrelevant, and should be neglected by the jurors. This is a decentralized list, formed by the existing policy, and nothing else. And even if it would hold any ground in this dispute, this token would still comply with the policy, as all the information of this submission is still correct. As I said before, the logo, name, ticker, and token contract address, all correctly refer to the asset of this submission.