Yes. From the first note/ drone in the beginning, I knew I was in for a ride. You have a cool blend of Philip Glass, Max Richter, and Trent Reznor going on here. The piano at 1:00 is what I assume everything can easily dig which is ironic because it's totally Philip Glass. The irony is how polarizing his music was in the beginning of his career and now his music has been so ingrained in modern music that it is considered safe. Moreover, If you kept it at this minimalistic piano, you probably would have scored more highly, but the fun in trying to merely win the hearts of people is fleeting. It's better to write for your own at the time. Even if you would have done things differently later on. I value the personal expression of one's music even if it's only for a short season in life.
The noise at 3:35 is something I'm fond of. It is meant to be an esoteric view on music, and sometimes having that amid harmony gives so plainly the dichotomy of what we composer's do in this world. I applaud this approach, but that was merely the artistic weight of the review.
As I look at the previous discussions to your mixing in this piece, I think the mixed responses on your mixing is due to how fluid the reasons may be. If you took your instruments and played them in isolation, you will find nothing wrong in terms of the sound in itself. It's not a matter of EQ, compression, reverb, distortion, etc, but rather in how many of the instruments have equal weight in terms of volume. Sure, EQ can be used as a tool to prevent frequencies from conflicting, but the issue is before that where one instrument doesn't just take the lead over the others. If you didn't want to give one instrument the reigns over all the others, you could automate the faders on each instrument highlighting only the most interesting parts each instrument may have. My theory is in the arrangement, though, I think the arrangement by itself could work. For example, the guitar that comes in at 1:59 is meant to give the piece some heaviness, but it's acting a bit shy at the moment. I hear the arpeggiated organ and other instruments panned at the same volume if not more than the guitar. But it is the guitar that draws our attention because it's so sonically different. Yes, but go by that with some conviction my man! The faders should have been automated as if you were soloing an instrument and then passing the torch to another instrument as the piece develops. You could do this suddenly, or slowly adjusting the faders where an instrument comes in and out without a listener consciously realizing this. Moreover, as other instruments comes in, it would distract the listener from noticing that you're slowly automating the volume down on a particular instrument to the point where it is no longer in the mix at all.
Another example is at 1:00 where obviously the piano is doing all the talking. Then at 1:30, the flute wants to say something but is being a little talked over by the piano. At 1:44 more instruments come in as support, and the flute has gained its confidence by playing in a higher register. At that point, the flute has the audience's attention so the piano isn't as important anymore. Too many talking heads will create the illusion of "too much reverb" by the way, and with too many instruments you will lose some people to the point where they might think you're trying too hard. They lose the train-of-thought as anyone would trying to eavesdrop a conversation amid a moving crowd of people. As the one famous Yoda has said, "Do or do not. There is no try." This piece just needs less competing instruments at the lead. That's my opinion, and even if it might help with this piece, you shouldn't apply every principle/guideline to every piece. Every rule is meant to be broken, but do it with conviction.