Wow, look at how much it went up! That's a huge spike! It's... oh. It's only a 3% increase? It looks much bigger when you ignore the numbers and just look at the pretty lines.

As you can tell, I'm rather skeptical of the way this rather limited data set is presented. It looks to me as if someone were trying to exaggerate the significance of their results in order to get more funding or support for their program.

If they want to make an *genuinely* convincing report, run each test longer than one week, show more than 1 data point per test, explain what the terms mean, and don't fool around with the axes so much.