This doesn't engage with the report at all. You call it pseudoscience without any supporting evidence. You speculate about error bars without grounding in fact,

This doesn't engage with the report at all. You call it pseudoscience without any supporting evidence. You speculate about error bars without grounding in fact, and the only counterargument you bring is a weak hand waving that it must be a hard problem, with a gratuitous citation from Wikipedia. And given that you basically claim that actuarial science is impossible, I'd hope you bring a stronger claim than that. As it is, this is, as the quote goes, "just your opinion, man".