Following Doorknob's footsteps, I wrote up an explanation of my review of each question. Like Doorknob, I'm disregarding the stated criteria. I'm instead judging by the value I think it adds to the site as a collection of puzzles. I imagine whether I would show the puzzle to a friend who is into that category of puzzle.
I'm being rather blunt and terse in my judgments, so I hope you don't think me too harsh. To give a critical evaluation, I am holding puzzles to a much higher standard than I use in voting.
Satisfactory: The puzzle is appealing, interesting, and well-stated. The title conveys the content well, and the term net is effective. The answers, however, are lacking. They claim that their nets work without demonstrating that they do.
Needs improvement: A weak riddle. The clues are vague rather than tricky ("Riddles are not people"?). Some lines are totally unhelpful, yet others are too direct ("I'll confuse you with my words and make you think you don't know!"). I don't imagine someone who solves this riddle to feel clever in doing so. Moreover, the whole "riddles about riddles" thing is well-worn ground, and this one doesn't stand out.
The title emphasizes House of Lies, but there's no riddle connection, which is bad for findability as well as theme. Maybe I'd appreciate the cadence of the riddle if I knew the opening, but I wasn't able to find the intro referenced online -- a link would have helped. The accepted answer is solid.
Needs improvement: A fascinating puzzle that suffers from poor presentation. The statement is confusing, and I didn't understand it at first even though I was already familiar with planar crossover gadgets. The title is good for motivating why were care about such a construction, but it needs to be explained further. The answers also lack explanation.
(Edit: I noticed afterward that the puzzle had been edited a bit to clarify after I originally read it, which would bring it to Satisfactory. I should have reread it rather than remembering my impressions.)
Excellent: An interesting twist that brings something new to a classic. Likely to be of interest to someone familiar with this genre of puzzle, but also points to background for those to are not. The puzzle is well-stated and reads smoothly. The accepted answer is both thorough and readable. Rather than using formal induction, it lays out the pattern for small cases, which is much easier to follow.
Needs improvement: A non-puzzle that does not belong on this site. While interesting as a mathematical problem, it is liable to trap someone looking for a clever puzzle into a frustrating mess of algebra.
The top answer is a truly exceptional effort to answer the math question, though even it notes "It is my opinion that the math gets too complicated for this to be considered a 'puzzle.'" It doesn't come up with an explicit answer (probably because there isn't one), but does give an integral expression and a Monte-Carlo estimate for it.
Needs improvement: A functional but unappealing puzzle. It's well-stated, but the needed setup is too tedious to explain what turns out to be a standard algorithm of computer science. The shtick with high-fives and interviews doesn't help elucidate the setup, and the choice of names is gratuitous and distracting. The title could be more useful. The answer is a bit too terse and formal.
Excellent Clever and concise. The accepted answer explains the solution well, and a second answer extends the puzzle and solution.
Satisfactory: A good riddle, close to Excellent. The riddle effectively builds on an a metaphor of keys on a keyboard, making the whole thing feel cohesive. Understanding it creates a great "Aha!". The clues are clever and specific. The answer thorough explains how each line fits.
As to why I don't rate it Excellent, though I don't see any faults in the riddle, neither do I see anything exceptional that makes it stand out from many other great riddles on this site.
Needs improvement: A well-stated puzzle that feels disappointing to solve. Most of the solving effort is simply understanding what the algorithm is doing, and there's little cleverness or insight in doing the "decryption", just the effort of writing the code. Encoding in a base is standard and familiar; this brings nothing new to the table. The clue "polynumcrypt(pass,1) = 1253" is irrelevant.
The puzzle statement is well-presented and enjoyable to read. The answers explain the solution well. This could almost be Satisfactory but for the lack of something new and special.
Satisfactory A clever riddle. The wordplay is delightful, and each clue gets at the answer from a different angle. The accepted answer does a good job explaining. That the other answer seems to fit equally well suggests that the riddle is underclued. The riddle itself is fairly bland in style and reads a bit awkwardly.
