whoever wrote this article has some profound misunderstandings in logic.
your first designed safeguard:
Honor was designed to recognize patterns. For example, Honorable players who are true positive should not be reported very often.
this is logical fallacy that will punish innocent gamers. Did anyone consider that someone might get reported often because they are just not very good or make silly mistakes a lot. Or better yet, the gamer in question likes to play different builds, or main a different build than people are used to.(and rest assured theres someone every game who will report a "troll build" if theyve never seen it before.)
So far, these abuse-prevention measures we built in have been highly effective:
Only 0.21% of players reported for consistent trading
0.63% of players actively trying to trade Honor
0.01% spamming Honor for dishonorable reasons
How is this remotely indicative of success? Saying that you have identified less than .84%, aka less than 1% as trying to abuse the system. For such a "toxic" community, this is more indicative that your identification methods are off not that your identification methods are working great at identifieng the abusers.
Also why tout the fact that you brought in Doctors to perform a research experiment. This is a little silly, why not a dentist and an electrician?
I would imagine a research scientist or someone who works in systemic reviews would be the proper canidate to perform such a test.
Did you use Doctors because people trust them? Maybe you can use Tom Hanks to perform your next experiment.