I think there is a difference here though. The 76-turn win is still somewhat within the constraints of the game (though land raiser and collective minds are bonkers). The turn 58 win IMO breaks the game in ways not intended by the devs.
I agree that the game should be balanced for the majority, but having a city on every single territory clearly goes against the design-philosophy of the game - why even build a big city or bother having the mechanism for attaching territories or even have influence in the game as a resource?
ICS has been the scourge of the CIV-like games and various mechanics have been introduced to combat it. Looking to humankind, the fact that there are so many ridiculous bonuses from luxuries on a “per city” basis, any strategy that lets you build unlimited cities and to add to that get the infrastructure for free (settlers with the techs) needs to be dealt with ASAP for the health of the game at all levels IMO (only reason to build “tall” cities is to get economies of scale in infrastructure).
I think the best way to deal with it is direct ramping yield penalties for negative influence, or rework how stability works so that you can’t just counter it with a ton of luxuries. If you run an empire without any power/influence, it should not be very productive. The guy ended the game with -2million influence, that just ain’t right