Most that that data is, sadly, not surprising.
Random things I note. Also, I think I overdid it:
I'm a bit confused why the sample size is referred to as not being statistically significant without any sort of p-value or the like being given. Not talking about how this is a non-random sample (as it clearly is not) is something else I think is missing and I'm being way too serious about this probably.
Using my basic math skills, it appears that 2 people didn't answer for gender and 15 people decided, unhelpfully, that their gender was "cis". I have no idea how the question was set up. but with 32/184 (17.4%) of the responses to gender falling into a space other than male/female I would have liked to have seen an attempt to split this into cis/trans along with male/female plus (a) non-binary and/or other option(s). This is especially true since the follow up piece on gender has a very awkward male/female/trans split that honestly makes no sense
as a result, it's unclear if everyone in the male and female categories are cis and the trans category is completely useless. Very small sample sizes especially make much of the gender evaluation on the next page questionable.
It's weird how they talk about Valiant supposedly valuing their creators so much and them enjoying the experience there when Valiant is firmly in the middle of the pack in the ratings of experience with publishers, finding themselves slightly behind Marvel and IDW and only above the mediocre ratings of Boom and Dynamite.
The lack of any real crosstab data outside the problematic gender-based follow up is disappointing as well.