Part B2 table scores assigned by the manuscript author were as follows: o1-preview (9.5), ChatGPT-4o (9.0), L3.1-405B (8.5), and 3.5 Sonnet (8.0) were most distinguishable based on if the table completion, and how convincing new LLM-Enhanced numerical data was. Table showed ChatGPT-4o had far less "N/A" or "Not specified" responses than 3.5 Sonnet in Table likely due to better contextual awareness of the 5 Paper Summary from Part B1, which is shown in Supplementary SB2. Another competitive generation is also found in SB2 by o1-preview, although its longer response was separated for each of the five papers. Additional studies asking generative AI models to further detail how LLMs forecasted yields, PMIs, and SUTs based on monte carlo simulations and markov chain models advantages would be a worthy endeavor for future studies.