I'm not familiar with how Withoutabox labels work. Here is the basic contest workflow.
Scripts are submitted to a contest on an ongoing basis. When received, the judging committee will check them so they are anonymous. The anonymous script is often sent to three different readers. One may be assigned to provide feedback. After reading, the reader is asked to provide an approve/reject. Two or three approvals move it forward. So in practice, yes, even after the first week of submissions, a script can already be out of the running. Because the scripts are assigned to readers to avoid conflicts, scripts passing the first go are referred to different reviewers for a second pass.
Typically a reader only approves 20% of what s/he receives. This means only about 4% move forward. So within the first few months, 5000 entries have been reduced to 200. In the second go, that drops to 8. Those 8 then moved to the star guest judges to evaluate. Often in the second pass, the criteria change and are more than pass/fail. The judging committees sometimes use numerical scores.
Some reviewers will prepare their critiques while they read. Others prefer not to be pulled out of the story, so they will read it through then go back. Either way, critiques take time. Often the contests provide guidelines as to the nature of the feedback to be given. The critiques and recommendations are sent back to the judging committee. They anonymize the feedback and send that back to the submitter. Many readers are paid for turnover. It's for this reason that I don't feel screenwriting contests are the best way of getting feedback. If you need direct, constructive feedback, it's better to pay a professional script consultant.
The CIFF only started accepting submissions two weeks ago (2/25). The critiques probably haven't been reviewed and sent yet. It is, however, possible to have been eliminated at this point as I mentioned above. A script isn't being compared against other scripts. It's being judged on its own merits. It is possible to move forward and get a bad review (the one 'down thumb' reviewer) or vice versa. To get a good review though the other two readers passed on the script.
I'm not suggesting this is how all contests operate. However, this is the general flow. The larger the contest, the more submissions, the more streamlined the review process needs to be to reduce the number of entries. It's not whether your script is better than another at the first cut. It's whether yours makes fewer errors (spelling, grammar, format, etc.) and can engage at least two readers' interests.
It's possible that 'History' simply means that it was received and now is awaiting evaluation from the readers. The feedback may still be in review before being passed to you. It's possible that two readers may have passed on the script even at this early stage, so you are indeed no longer in consideration. It sucks. As I've said in other posts, I've seen good scripts go nowhere in contests.
Don't base your self esteem on contests. Sometimes it is just the luck of the draw to get tough readers or those who don't enjoy the genre you write. Committees try to avoid genre conflict when assigning readers, but in large contests, that's often hard. Always try to match your script to compete in the genre you write. Try to find out the previous winners and decide if your script fits the same feel. You very seldom see horror or sci fi win general screenwriting competitions, mostly drama.
I would strongly urge you to wait a couple more weeks and not to write nasty letters to them just two weeks after they opened for submissions. They are probably swamped with details. The early bird calls are just that. The organizers are running around with a million things on their minds. You should hear something by March 25th, a month after they opened. Good luck.
