I was biased against it from the start because it seemed to be making large claims that didn't have any evidence of working with my people, the ones with serious mental illness and in crisis. I didn't know anything about positivity ratios, nor would I have been much interested. If you want to study such things, there is no need to be more complicated than the simple 3-1 ratio. Test that.
It turns out the problem stems from trying to make the data look ultra scientific, when it in fact seems to have little underneath it.