TeamCharm has retained me, the most prominent public defender in the city of Random Battles, to contest this decision.
Whether to award an activity win is not based on who did the better job scheduling; it is a determination of who is at significant fault for the series not being completed. This can be seen with cases such as xray vs Luigi
from SPL XII (which I hosted), where one side was only available during weekdays and the other was only available during the weekend. Despite there being a higher raw number of days available from the weekdays side, we (the hosts) determined that neither party was at significantly more/less fault for the game not being completed, and so a forced substitution could not be justified. We ruled the series as a double substitution. The analogous adjudication for individual tournaments, such as Generation 7 (Seven) Random Battles Open, is a coinflip or an extension.
While your assessment that TeamCharm's opponent "Infinite Misery" is not at significant fault for the series being uncompleted is correct given the facts and logic, we argue that the opposite, that TeamCharm is at significant fault, is both untrue and a key factor to awarding activity win to Infinite Misery. In no situation should proposing a time less than 24 hours before said time count as a legitimate attempt to schedule; we all have things to be doing and things that come up that take precedence over mons, especially if said mons is only being brought up on short notice. With that element nullified in your assessment, what the situation comes down to is both sides not scheduling well in advance and failing to complete the series because of it.
Given these facts and logic, we request that the activity win be rescinded, an extension granted, and both sides be instructed to schedule properly to get the series done or justification for an activity win properly established.