This argument is getting confusing to those of us on the outside (of AL).
So, you're assuming they are "wrong" because their data "isn't meaningful" and is "built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale". You know what their data is? Because if you don't doesn't that make your argument... circular and wrong? Kind of they are wrong because their data is bad and their data is bad because they are wrong? Or am I missing something here? Is their data public? Are their data collection methods and sources (all of them) known? Do you have access to their methodology, sources and data sets? If so, then you are in a position to say something factual and accurate about it, if not you are providing informed speculation based on you own evidence and assumptions.
I'm curious.