Having re-read the document in its entirety, I can only conclude that the minimal revisions that have been applied (to the conclusions), haven't solved its fundamental problems. To start with, it remains unclear why it was decided to go through some incredibly convoluted analysis to conclude that total DM eaten and stocking rate is the main driver of GHG emissions on B+LNZ farms..., but doesn’t thereafter seem to grasp that this is also where one of the avenues for potential improvements lies. Instead, it comes to the erroneous conclusion that “The multivariate analysis also supported the notion that sheep and beef farmers have limited options to reduce GHG emissions.” It is, moreover, clear from the large variance within and between farm classes and different types of clusters, in the data set that was used, that this is not the case. What is more likely to be the case, is that the study’s analyses and clustering didn't allow for the identification of where improvements / reductions within and between classes/clusters etc. can be made. 

In addition, in its current form, the report remains often unclear and difficult to understand, has a dearth of referencing, and vague on its conclusions / recommendations -apart from its bottom line that farmers can't do anything to reduce GHG emissions... Whilst I think that there is clear merit in using the data set to identify potential options that combine GHG reduction with other farming outcomes/objectives, it is difficult to see what the publication in its current form would add to that discussion.
