There was no agonizing at all. It's a long form (and video) needing all founders discussion/input and the questions are tailored and formatted for YCs requirements.
Sending the application to other people or posting publicly isn't going to help understand why YC specifically rejected it either.
It's reasonable to want more feedback, but given YC's model and applicant volume, it's also reasonable for them to give most applicants a generic decline, as well.
I'd say your reward for the effort was the chance at acceptance, plus the benefits of the exercise – having necessary pitching discussions with your cofounders.
Why focus specifically on why the YC process passed on you? Lots of other people can give feedback that will reasonably approximate YC's – and perhaps more importantly, will let you know what other funders/mentors/customers would think.
The keen desire for a YC-specific-explanation is itself a potential reason they might avoid giving detailed feedback... even a few words might encourage some teams to obsess over YC's estimation (and perhaps keep trying to 'clarify'/'explain' their application) rather than moving forward on other opportunities. Sometimes, a simple 'no' is a favor, too.
That's very true and I couldn't agree more but all causes need figureheads and knowing Gus as I do I'm sure that once he's got through this situation with help from the community he'll be right back in there to help the other people in similar situations that aren't able to raise a similar level of support.
I should add that we're not looking for a team of hackers that are themselves in need of rapid iteration but it is, in fact, the job spec that could do with said iteration :-)
Bryggens spisehus Islands Brygge 18 2300 København S
http://bryggens.dk/
See you there!
PS Please signup to the Meetup group too so we can let you know of any last minute changes