I only glanced at it quickly--I see so many darned statistical studies (I work for a C.R.O. and we work with pharma companies on clinical trials every single day) that I spotted some things that had me curious.

1) How could a model ONLY see FC as relevant and not the FC/CYA relationship?
2) Why do they seem disparaging of the TOUGHER standards of sanitation? NOBODY goes in my pool unless it's at those tough standards.
3) Most of the graphs have dip in them where the slope actually changes directions. It's consistent across many of them them--and in the same spot. This doesn't make sense. FC rises and bacteria falls, THEN rises, then falls again? It's not just in one graph, so it's not an abberation. I suspect it's a flaw in the model--probably the sampling procededure. Since it's across what? 450 pools approx, something is happening they aren't addressing.

Again, I haven't looked closely but 3) is SO odd that they should have an explanation of it---and don't. I'm also no whiz at modelling, but I DO know a little about it.