Amos obviously has been exposed to excessively high PHB factors.

A masterful creation of a consistent and apparently rational calculation that looks great on paper but signifies absolutely nothing (almost).

It should IMMEDIATELY be recorded as a PowerPoint presentation chart and made available for universal access by all.

Your own PHB factor contributers will be IMPRESSED. (But only if the chart is "pretty.")

Amos omitted however the influence of F_g on the effective "strength" of the PHB.

F_g(PHB_i) = Glaze Factor, defined as the number of decimal points you can include in a number before the "ith" PHB's eyes glaze over. Note that if this function is included, it often is necessary to separately evaluate the factor for EACH of the PHB influences presence, however it's customary to just use a consolidated mean of the values in calculations. In many cases, all present PHB_i will have nearly identical F_g, usually in the lower range of values.

Some argue that inclusion of this factor is insignificant, since nobody has ever identified a PHB with F_g > 2. This makes the factor limited to three values (0, 1, or 2) in all cases¹; hence it exerts only a mild influence on the D_a value, but PHBs with the lowest F_g seem always to operate over the widest areas, so that when the density is multiplied by the area of operation astronomical A_T (total annoyance) frequently results.

Sorry: A_T is the common term used in some circles for the paramer Amos defined as I_NS = Net Sanity Index.

¹ Some argue that fractional values should be allowed for F_g, to account for PHBs who glaze over at the anticipation that you're about to add a decimal point, however the majority of authorities seem to prefer simple multiplication by the function P_LIC(PHB_i) to separately describe the Probablility that a particular PHB will "Leap to Irrational Conclusions." Including the factor in this way allows one to apply it more flexibly to numerous other calculations where it has more separate significance than F_g. In many cases that have been studied, the P_LIC(PHB_i) function alone appears to account for nearly the whole value of A_T (= I_NS).

A very good start on a subject that obviously merits extensive additional study, documentation, and standardization of the method(s). We well might form a Standards Committe in furtherance of this; but that would make all of us "low-value PHB contributors."

John