Just a couple of quick comments (and I apologise for replicating above but just in case some gloss over the fine print) as I don't have much time to contribute at the moment unfortunately.
1) Please save the program when you download it to save Alans loading on the system.
2) Norm - we have had several versions since but this one encompasses two normal distributions. vertical and horizontal. The horizontal is governed by the "wind reading ability" standard deviation multiplied by wind drift. In reality this combines all possible horizontal components in one figure. You are correct a persons horizontal shot placement as well as rifle accuracy should be considered separately to wind drift but generally can be absorbed by the major component (wind) for demonstration purposes. The result of what you speak is a very slight skewing of outcomes towards the larger wind drift (as all horizontal components are increased proportionally with this figure) Increase and decrease this figure (currently set to 1mph) for various conditions or wind reading abilities.
At the default conditions - comparing an accurate 284 VLD doing 2840 odd fps to a less accurate SAUM pointed hybrid in the 3000+ bracket it was obvious there were very little difference when the conditions were good (or obviously the wind reading ability is up there) set the horizontal wind reading ability to say 0.5 mph sd and hit f9 a few times. you will see similar score s- if not leaning slightly towards the accurate side. What is obvious from this outcome is when conditions are good (and winning scores are up there in the 59-60 bracket then there is far less difference between these to scenarios. When conditions are exceptional - accuracy wins every time. When it gets hard however - and average scores fall down to the mid 50's or below the pendulum swings the other way.
But get an accurate SAUM/300WSM - then the outcome is obvious - once again not much difference in perfect conditions or run by experts but when the going gets tough (or less experienced shooters) and the scores become markedly different.
And sorry there is a typo above - 1000 shoots (*10 shots) but 10,000 shots for each rifle - Hit F9 and it is another 10,000 - hard to replicate this sort of power in testing at the range Adam

- Our approach was to try and combine the science and modeling with getting out there in the field and proving it. This one gave us clarity on direction as a team for FCWC and Rod and Linda decided we needed a few bigger rifles in case it got tough - even if they weren't holding the same vertical they can be handy in severe conditions. In the end we ended up with a few accurate SAUMs that were indeed handy but the humble 284 and milder SAUM loads held together better in the heat and altitude than the big magnums - but we had both cases well covered. (Mark actually brought along 2* SAUMS and 2 WSMS, plus I had 2 SAUMS going and Rods 7WSM as well - we had the team covered if it proved necessary (luckily it didn't so we could use all our very accurate 284's and their equally outstanding team of pilots)
We went on a mad few year mission of investigating many of the common accuracy myths with respect to 1000 yard accuracy and heavy wind training for coaches. As such much of it was put down once we had a "field" outcome and remains as unfinished work - hopefully next year will prove a little easier and Peter and I can finish some articles. I wish I had more time to contribute whilst the likes of Williada and others are contributing amazing volumes of very interesting stuff. - The links to Jim Boatright included.
Aaron - yes this thread was hijacked a bit sorry - I was responding to Adams comments.- considering this is the first time we have posted this spreadsheet to the general public perhaps it might be best to go to its own thread and leave Jims work for the attention it deserves.