Essentially, what you said was that you made a terrible bid, and because of the bid your partner got off to a terrible opening lead that gave up a trick. Then you argued that the reason for your terrible bid was the failure to alert a forcing notrump that you assumed, without asking, was a nonforcing notrump. The fact that you made a terrible bid in and of itself has nothing to do with the alert or failure to alert. So, after making a terrible call and getting a terrible result because of your terrible call, you complain to the director who agrees with you that you wouldn't have made the terrible call if the 1NT call had been alerted. And the director changes the result to give you your trick back!
Totally absurd. Perhaps your opponents should be given some penalty for their failure to alert, but you should not be allowed a double shot with your bid. In other words, if the bid had worked in your favor, you would not complain and the score would stand, but if the bid worked out badly, you complain and are given an adjustment. The argument that there was a link between the non-alert and your terrible bid is strained, to say the least. But the director let you get your trick back! Absurd.