Here once again is the Wiki position on primary sources:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

Do you believe that the primary sources have been reliably published? If so, they may be used in Wikipedia?
Do you believe that I have interpreted the primary source or misrepresented what that source says in a summary? If so, can you supply an example?
Are you able to verify the accuracy of the contents of each of the cells?
Do you believe that there is any actual interpretation in the table? If so where?