Yes, if you have three points to raise then ask three questions on the site. Absolutely. We can get into the underpinnings below the mathy stuff that way. You've clearly realised that maths is just a straw man. Neither Barker nor Kelsey inspire confidence either professionally or personally. Their methods seem, unsound. And running to the stats library to find something that 'fits' isn't good science.
However, be warned. This is a pro US/NIST site so criticisms are not welcomed. Posing incisive questions of NIST has proved unfruitful personally. This raises broader issues that are probably better addressed in less constrained forums. Whatever answers you find should be tempered with the NSA warning on page
iii, NOBUS policy, the US $B82 intelligence budget, and scope of 44 U.S.C. § 3541. Also look up Price's work on compartmentalisation and the Asch effect to understand why we answer as we do.
You could also ask NIST to correct that spelling mistake on the front page of the 90B implementation.
Rolls-Royce is always correct.