Developer receives "k, we've restored your account", which sounds an awful lot like "what you're doing is fine".
Developer gets shut down again despite having explained the behavior as requested (i.e. the explanation is on file) and despite the explanation being considered sufficient by DO.
The "with the details you provided, we've removed the hold" e-mail is hard to interpret differently than "sorry for the misunderstanding, this is fine", especially as the initial e-mail asked them to explain to "ensure your account is not subjected to additional scrutiny or placed on billing hold". If they meant "ok but don't do that again" they should have stated so.
My guess is that the account suspensions are an automated monitoring process and not someone sitting in a NOC monitoring activity.
Think of that automated monitoring like a circuit breaker in an electrical panel. If you plug an air compressor into a 15 amp circuit and it pops the breaker, once you flip the breaker back on would you run the compressor again? No? Then why would you think it ok perform the same activity that tripped up the automated system?
The OP seemed to be aware that spooling up 10 VMs to do whatever he did was what got him booted, so... why didn't he reach out to DO to find out exactly what alarms he tripped and then take action to either get his account whitelisted or modify his process to ensure it didn't trip the automated alarms again?
He just got his account unbanned (flipped the circuit breaker) and fired his job back up (turned the compressor back on).
Developer explains as requested.
Developer receives "k, we've restored your account", which sounds an awful lot like "what you're doing is fine".
Developer gets shut down again despite having explained the behavior as requested (i.e. the explanation is on file) and despite the explanation being considered sufficient by DO.
The "with the details you provided, we've removed the hold" e-mail is hard to interpret differently than "sorry for the misunderstanding, this is fine", especially as the initial e-mail asked them to explain to "ensure your account is not subjected to additional scrutiny or placed on billing hold". If they meant "ok but don't do that again" they should have stated so.