The intro had me a bit worried, so I did some math and arrived past the guideline minimum 50% source, even without counting the second source. So that's good. For a track this long, the 44 seconds of intro I couldn't tie to either source is tolerable (unlike the arghbright synth melody at 0:25).
The interpretation is a bit predictable, but the minor key take on the source is a welcome change, and I think the source melodies are sufficiently creatively used throughout. it might be worth mentioning the second source when you resub it.
The arrangement is a bit problematic. Half the time it seems to be building towards a pretty cool edm track, the other half it seems to lose where it is and where it's going. It spends a lot of time building towards something, but only transitions to a different build-up. I guess 3:08 and 4:33 where the parts that were being built towards, but I honestly felt the track lost energy when entering the 3:08 part. Probably the rhythms and lack of strong mids. The dubstep finale work better in that regard, and works especially well in slowing the track down for the ending.
The intro works ok but leaves me at 1:11 already feeling like the track is winding down. That break and subsequent build-up seem to come straight from the intro, not from a high point. I don't think that works, structurally.
The sounds are quite vanilla, but I'm more concerned with how empty the track sounds at times, and how dominating pads and other sounds get when they're there. The piano could be more separated from the trance stabs in the 0:44 part. On the other hand, the 1:12 part has the opposite problem, where the piano stands out a bit too much. The pads get dominating at around 2:00. I get that they need to be big for the 2:10 part, but that part hasn't imo been appropriately been built up to, and it's more intense than when you've got drums in the track. That seems a little unbalanced.
As already stated, the empty mids in the 3:08 part, along with a rhythm that until 3:16 holds the track back (a valid arrangement technique, it just seems placed wrong here) hurts the track, as does the heavy compression/sidechaining in that part. If you look at the wave display on soundcloud, you'll see that you've left a few dBs of headroom. Seems like you normalized the track to a different peak, so there's probably an instrument that's too loud somewhere in the dubstep part. You could also limit the drum transients to make further use of the headroom you've got. All this while reducing the compression (higher threshold, lower ratio, shorter release, something) on everything else.
Much of the track has passable sounds, a bit vanilla but not terribly so. The arghbright lead at 0:25 needs some fixing, tho, as could the eq/filter at 3:07, it's a bit too resonant.
Overall, it's far from terrible, but there's things left to fix, and I'm not sure how well the arrangement works: there's parts that do and parts that don't. It's also got a personal pet peeve of mine: voice clips/sound effect, but don't let that bother you.
You've managed to avoid most of the problems on the checklist, so I won't even use that.
I think it's primarily the arrangement that's a problem here, the technical things are fairly easy to fix. In this state, I'd probably reject it if I was a judge, probably with a resub vote suggestion you rethink the arrangement. It seems lacking in this nebulous thing called direction. It's like you have all the right parts but they're not in the right place.
That's my arghlong review, make of it what you will.