Two things stood out the most to me in this thorough (and accessible!) writeup:
* demystifying the algorithm : I *love* that this was visible. Despite it being what allowed for arguement in why the reprsentations we not accurate, it meant INFORMED arguments. This transparency of process as well as data is sorely lacking in nearly every platform, visualization, etc etc.

and
* the feeling of being "laughed at" : I have found it a *vital* part of workshops about systemic and infrastructural change (example: water point tracking in Tanzania) to include a component of someone being left out of resource allocation and communication. The group hears how that person feels, gets to make choices about their own sacrifice to include that person in the future, and hopefully that translates into resource allocation beyond the workshop. This safety net was sadly not present in this initiative. Not sure how it could have been.