This. I'm surprised that even people who are very well-versed in math omit statistics other than an average or, at best, a median. Is it really just me who wonders about, and in this case really expects, variability in the value? Especially given the huge differences, you might have had a few slow or a few lucky starts that shifted the middle value. Probably they saw the raw data and didn't notice such huge spikes and would have changed the method if they had, but it's not even mentioned so this is pure speculation on my part.