Ben's report clearly says what results can be achieved when using an extremely well-documented method. There is precisely one assumption underlying this report: Namely, that Atlantic Root's Whois database is kind of exact.
As we all know by now, this assumption was not entirely correct: According to Leah, various domains were registered by Atlantic Root on behalf of various clients. But does this invalidate Ben's figures? Not at all. And does it say anything about Ben's integrity? Not at all. (In fact, it says much more about Leah's.)
So how, dear Judith, do you come to talk about "defamation", and about "subjective, incomplete, and unverified data"? In fact, Ben's report is just the opposite: It's a clearly-written account of the data ARNI publicizes, with some easily verifiable statistics and plots.
Also, it's the first time that there is any foundation for making a rough estimate of the credibility of Leah's claims - and that's a good thing.
So, if you want to criticize the report, criticize indivdual aspects. Prove where the report is wrong. Create the kind of report on ARNI you believe to be objective, verified, and complete.