The report was great, and answers a lot of questions everyone had. I'm especially glad to see you applied your tools to OTB games.
The only disappointing thing was the focus on how fast Hans' rating soared after he hit 2500, and how much it rose between ages 11 and 19.25. These thresholds were very cherry-picked to make Hans look bad, which you didn't need to do. For example, Hans's rating lingered at 2450 for two years and then popped. If you charted ratings rise starting at 2450, Hans would be on the other side of the chart!
If the rate of increase is highly unusual, then the rate itself is the relevant datum, and the interval over which it occurred is not being cherry-picked, even though it may appear to be. In other activities, more than one cheater has been caught out by presenting data that contains a brief period which was physically impossible, and the fact that the averaged data had no such problem did not, of course, make the concern go away.
To be clear, as there is no equivalent to a physical impossibility here, I am not claiming that the rate of rating increase is conclusive; I am saying it seems to be a legitimate concern regardless of how reasonable the broader averages are.
The only disappointing thing was the focus on how fast Hans' rating soared after he hit 2500, and how much it rose between ages 11 and 19.25. These thresholds were very cherry-picked to make Hans look bad, which you didn't need to do. For example, Hans's rating lingered at 2450 for two years and then popped. If you charted ratings rise starting at 2450, Hans would be on the other side of the chart!