In my university math departments putnam problem competition (they'd just be on the wall, prize was a $40 giant pizza each week) they would accept the most elegant solution, so if nobody else submitted something better I'd get a pizza for just running a few lines of python.
I'm not gatekeeping proofs here, and I'm glad you got math pizza :) If proofwiki had exhaustively printed all possible arrangements, or the decision tree of constructing them, or if they had even included the code that would do the checking (like, say, https://www.richard-towers.com/2023/03/11/typescripting-the-...), then I would agree it counts. But without even a rough ballpark estimate of possible arrangements to check, asserting "brute force" does not make a proof. If I incorporate understanding of the problem, I can see that at most we need to check 8!, which is reasonable. But if the constraints were not so simple, then we might be dealing with 64-choose-8 cases instead, which is heading into not-reasonable.
They can add the same sentence under every finite fact in their wiki, but then it won't be a proof wiki, it would be a list of numeric facts they checked by brute force and we can either trust them, or check ourselves.
In my university math departments putnam problem competition (they'd just be on the wall, prize was a $40 giant pizza each week) they would accept the most elegant solution, so if nobody else submitted something better I'd get a pizza for just running a few lines of python.