can't fault the data....
or the calculations as flawed. Given the stated assumptions, it looks pretty good to me.
However, what conclusions we draw from the data can be flawed. Or they can be accurate, and just not applicable to a specific situation we might find ourselves in.
Since a movie was mentioned, lets look at another one....
A "standoff" scene in (I believe) Delta Farce (yes, I know, a comedy but look at the point)
"You think you can shoot ALL of us?"
"No, but I can shoot YOU!"
"oh, I always forget that part....."
I think it is important to realize that the bad guys seldom expect effective armed resistance, and often the reactions of the ones not being shot are not instant attack.
And I don't see any way to figure that into any calculations. Even highly trained soldiers (about as professional as you can get) have differing reactions when the lead flies, especially for the first time. Some follow their training instantly, some don't. And few criminals are as well trained as soldiers.
The data is interesting, and worthy of thought, but any confrontation we will be in is an individual thing, as likely to fall outside the averages as within.
The Armed Citizen column in the American Rifleman (and other NRA publications) is full of situations where, when confronted, many of the bad guys flee. You can't count on it, but you shouldn't discount it, either, IMHO.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.