Ah, so this is not how people doing chemistry refer to different chemical elements in their papers. Given the overall level of imitation, I thought it's that.
I think the sequence of sci-fi-like references goes like this:
"Chemical A0-3959X.91–15, i.e. 42-(acetyloxy)-1-7-0-1-unobtaini-interferon acid, also known as "black goo", sold under brand name EcoCola, marketed as alternative to NukaCola, is an nano-engineered chemical first documented in report A0-3959X, ..."
In the methods sections they might actually do this with what is called a CAS number. This ensures you can order the that exact chemical from Sigma Aldrich when you try that experiment yourself.
Interesting that Optimizely is positioning themselves as the over arching discipline as "Statistics reinvented for the internet age". My guess is to parry against the onslaught of A/B testing and optimization platforms for web and mobile from all directions. Of course with their stable of PHD statisticians and data scientists, Optimizely is the answer.
No, if you read their technical paper, it's frequentist sequential testing with false discovery rate control, which is a fairly recent development (I mean, 25 years old is pretty new in statistics).
I think all OP is trying to point out is that it either agrees with bayesian methods or it's wrong... so at best it's not materially new, and at worst it's using questionable assumptions.
