OP claims the report was done by a 3rd party engineer.  Engineers don't work for free, someone paid him.  Easy enough to chose which comparison vehicles and data to present that make the case for the person paying for the report.  Not saying that is what happened here but it can be done.

Many of the other documents presented here are cut short and incomplete with the OP inferring meaning based on the clipped text (and even then, sometimes the text present does not support his cause).

What happened to his family is tragic but what exactly is he trying to accomplish here?   Is he trying to convince someone who is obviously an enthusiast, who understands that there are inherent dangers to stop using his UTV?