Sorry for the metacomment, but looking at the majority of comments on this story, it reminds me of one of the key issues in science research — all peer-reviewed work has to include the methodology, the samples, and so on, for peers to review the validity of the conclusion and to be able to reproduce (see “replication crisis”). Without knowing any of this, we have to talk your word for it — that’s not a comment on motivation or mission — and that’s problematic for something presented as a standard.
Also, reminded of what a scientist friend said: “just because you have numbers doesn’t mean you have science”. (Note that if you follow links on the nnG research linked in another comment, the reports offer transparency about their methodology.)
