Somewhat annoyingly there's some comments on some social media about how the Brazilian ranking favored those who are good in sprints (i.e. Bruna), over those who are good at distance races, and so the ranking 'was unfair'. Sigh. To be clear: the internal ranking consisted of three (3) classic sprints and also three (3) freestyle distance races within the qualifying period. Average of those 6 results decided. Not a weighted average or anything, simply an outright average.
In case more than one athlete reached the A criteria, there would be a ranking that does in fact favor a discipline - distance. That ranking would consist of 2 classic sprints, 2 freestyle distance races and 2 'wildcards' which would be any discipline. Considering the number of points in distance races is nearly always lower, that would favor whoever is better in distance races. And that makes sense, because with A criteria, one would actually do 3 distance races and 2 sprints. However, with no A criteria, one will do 2 sprints and 1 distance race at the Olympics. So even though the ranking that decided things now did not in fact favor sprints, it would not even be bad if it did, since there will be more sprints than distance races.
I guess it's disappointed talking for people who had hoped to see someone else qualify and don't really know how the qualifying system works in reality. That's fine, although I'd generally try to be more respectful.