So the 'law of big numbers' is basic statistics, and basically you are assuming that the set of incorrect calibrations are normally distributed around the true mean of the data set, which is probably a fairly reasonable assumption.  And they are assuming the relative differences measured by the monitor are accurate.  Whole different topic.  But you know that already.

I do agree the order2 surveys have been stretched pretty far.

I also agree that the GIS world has made a bit of a mockery of us all, since it is easy to bin (sort) the legend histogram by percent of relative value, instead of by an absolute value legend scheme.  A pox on our house perpetrated by those pesky computer programmers.  I was just at a meeting today where this was discussed.  Relative values are important, but absolute values pay bills. 

Sounds like you have a lot more investment and ability to benefit from your accumulated data than most folks.  Think it gives you an edge over your competition?