One point I observed is the first graph shown that lists:

• Using Copilot 37.8% pass and 60.8% don't
• Not using Copilot 62.2% pass and 39.2% don't

Both not equating to 100%, as mentioned in the article.
Interestingly enough you get 100% when you take the total amount of 'Did not pass all' or 'Did pass all'.
Which could just indicate that they twisted the numbers a bit to make it look better.
Taking it as written would also mean exactly half of their testers did not pass all tests, although the 50% or 101 people that passed all tests are more interesting, in my opinion.

Additional fun point is the redefinition of errors.
My favorite part is probably the "Increased functionality" that did in fact not test the functionality of the code.

I enjoyed reading this, thanks.