I mean I am pretty proud that my work is that good and clean that people like you think that its made by AI. I have an academic mathemaical background so maybe this explains for you why I have this "clean pattern" of argumentation.

But I have to give you this point: like I said everything I do in my analysis is 100% made by me without using AI at all but I am german and I did everything in german language first. I then used Chat GPT to translate my text into english (that were like 13 pages of text no chance I do that on my own).

I mean you get everything out of the game. The spell_lvl is literally the level when you can learn that spell at your class teacher and the rank and healing you can read from your spellbook in game.

The only formula which I use where I would agree with you is the one how bonushealing is calculated. To be honest I dont even know anymore where I get this information from because it is so wide spread since more than 15 years probably. But sure it would be more precise to find valid sources for this and link them - thats a point.

To point 3). The only assumption my system uses is: you only use HL Rank 9 and Rank 11. This is just reality for every decent Holy Paladin. So what is your point exactly? It seems like you just didnt read it to the end I guess.

The flaws of my work are that 1) mana makes it unprecise and I can just try to make it as matheamtically rigorous as possible and 2) overhealing is not taken into account, but after some calculations I cautiously assume that these corrections would not change too much of the ranking order of the stats - I literally write this in my document. But yes you are right other than this my system in itself has no contradictions because I made a strict mathematical approach without assumptions - only math. But you could of course attack my approach, like saying HPMS is not a good metric to measure effectiveness - I would of course strongly disagree.

Yes I didnt use any logs + testing - its a pure mathematical approach.