That's why I say we may confuse each other.
My fundamental assumption is that this shall be 2,000~3,500, not 800~1,200. You have Globalization, you have Scott in normal games which you can chop, you have Kilwa Ksiwani, also you have amenity bonus. Cities with all 3 buildings and powered provide 50+ base science, so this number is about 100% more. Late game cities provide 100+ science per turn each. And even on peaceful games you have no less than 15~20 cities.
However if you stay at the 800-1200 range it is sure that what we're saying may be very confusing to each other in all aspects. I always get 2000~3500 science per turn in late game. In this game the science peak is 2007 I guess. (I didn't build Scott as I cannot chop and it takes too long time to hard build, also there's only 1 Scientific CS on the map. So my SPT falls in the lower range.)
Not saying your 800-1200 being "incorrect" or so, just that I don't wanna be judged by misunderstandings and misleading statements. i.e. Judged from a 800-1200 point of view, everything in the 2000-3500 does may be hard to understand. For example, the 2000-3500 may take "How to surpass the 1-tech-per-turn limit" seriously in their games, and it may just be confusing about why doing so from a 800-1200 point of view. Other issues about Spaceport placement, how many builders needed..., etc. may also be totally hard to understand if one doesn't play at 2000-3500 himself.
About your unreasonable blames on great scientists, I really suggest you download the end save at #1 and have a look before making incorrect and misleading statements. Your comments make me laugh, seriously.
An interesting claim on the 2,000-3,500 science number, considering in your own game within the timeframe that I'm talking about - the time between Satellites and nanotechnology - you have about 750 science as you finish Satellites, and around 1500 when you finish Nanotechnology which seems to be about in line with what I said - especially considering I usually don't have globalization when I hit those numbers. I hadn't even checked all of your screenshots before hand but upon review they seem to be very much inline with what I said, only being inflated by about 25% on the high end, again due to the massive size of your empire from going to war which is easily the most powerful "exploit" used in this game which you still haven't addressed and is the most important point I'd like you to respond to. I tend to hit the 800-1200 number on less than 10 cities in teh same timeframe for reference.
Considering you ended with about 2,000 science in this game compared to your 3,500 number, I'll assume this was just a bad game and you could easily hit a 180 turn win with a real science civ and no war + the other exploits?
I would consider conquering the AI far more powerful than chopping, plundering, trading or neighbourhood gold, so its interesting that you didn't ban them and would be highly interested in seeing you run a game without war.
Might be a reading comprehension failure here, and in fact the more I read the more I'm convinced we're having simple communication errors.
The extra support of this is because I'm trying to talk about general cases, with experience from many games, where you might not always get the good great scientists in games where you're not going to war but you keep bringing it back to this specific game, which is not the point I'm trying to make at all because I don't think this specific game is representative of what you claim it to be representative of.
The fundamental criticism here is that your performance while impressive is not perfectly repeatable, scientific, or consistent and cannot be used to generalise about how quickly every civ in the game can win a SV because there are so many variables to consider and "RNG" can quite easily affect your game.