EQF:

When somebody makes a claim of an "advance" it gets my attention. The question to ask is: "Is it a real advance or not?"

You have made such a claim in your post below and this is what interests me.

Roger, from what I understand, used to evaluate predictions as one part of his job working for the government. IMO, if you are implying that a credible evaluation cannot be done by anybody not (currently) part of the government then you are mistaken.

The questions you have about your precursor data may possibly be cleared up by evaluations of your predictions. Statistical tests can identify what concepts and methods work and which ones do not. This could also save you some time chasing methods which do not pan out...or identify which methods work. Evaluation can improve your efficiency by more quickly identifying unfruitful methods.

It's nice that you have listed your precursor data (at one time) for anybody to review. This opens the possibility that some other pair of eyeballs can make sense of it or couple it to other data as well. Sometimes this (smaller) effort is the extent of someone's contribution to solving a problem...that is, in aiding someone else in "connecting the dots".

From your admitted difficulties in interpreting your own data, I would say it is more accurate to say that your "advance" is still far from being proven...but not for lack of trying....

Just my .02 worth