I'm sure the program is useful, but I don't have time to comment on it. I just posted to agree with Roger and Chris that your methods are not worth investing much effort to understand; there have been no demonstration that any of it has predictive value, and your methods are unnecessarily convoluted.

The weakness of most analyses is inconsistency with known physics of faulting or just plain physics, so fancy statistics are not really a primary requirement of the program.

My prejudice is to keep posters on the right track, while not discouraging fun speculation, rather than equipping posters with tools too specialized for most people to grasp. Your studies, in contrast, have been entirely statistics-free so far, and thus untested. You might consider adding primitive statistics to see if your methods are valid before acting as chaperone for much more sound programs like Rogers.

John