Thanks for posting, Matt.
The authors have done a great job analysing all these different EPDs and highlighted some of the methodological pain points (e.g. allocation of fly-ash and BFS; treatment of secondary fuels). Notwithstanding those issues, the spread in EPD results is quite reasonable in my view, when you consider how many variables are in play across these hundreds of EPDs. Of course, CO2e is the “safe” indicator which is reasonably well understood. If you looked at other environmental indicators reported through the EPDs (e.g. acidification, eutrophication, etc.), all bets are off.
Cheers,
Rob