The content of this book is amazing and truly 5 stars, and it's a tragedy it didn't hit a quality bar to be published by some of the bigger publishers. If Scott can make the time for the necessary improvements, I think and hope he can get it the distribution this book could potentially deserve.
The reason I'm rating this more critically is because it reads like he rushed it. Rather than authoritatively summarizing the research he has studied and citing it accordingly, he reports on it as if he's doing a book report. It leaves the reader with a constellation of data points, and little authority on the matter. I can forgive that, as being more dry and empirical has an unassuming honesty to it that is charming in its own way, although it's not as impactful as it could be. Furthermore, the structure of the book is counterintuitive, with many sections feeling out of order or like they could be part of another section. These content structure choices make it clear that the intention of the book is also ambiguous. A vast majority of the book is style-agnostic reporting on hop research, often with lagers, and even wine, but then sprinkled throughout, "haziness" is referenced as if this was a book about NEIPA. The title of the book is fine, and a simple chapter about different new IPA styles could have easily positioned this as the Bible of IPA trends... rather than a book that is about hoppiness in general but that we think is mostly about hazy IPA because that's what he's interested in and mentions it alot.
My biggest frustrations are editorial in nature. The grammar is broken and the units are inconsistent. For example, one page uses sulfate:chloride ratio and the next page uses chloride:sulfate ratio. One page uses lbs/bbl and the next sentence uses absolute number of lbs, leaving you to track back to find how large the brew house was in order to calculate it yourself.
A 2.0 with these problems resolved could make this one of the best new brewing books in years.