Actually the problem is that for periods in the range 0.1 to 0.18 the inter-event residual is 0 according to both Table 8 of the paper (and in the erratum). So the expected value and the actual value are both correct, but of course the division in the the comparison throws a divide by 0 warning. I guess this could be solved by replacing the coefficient 0.000 with an arbitrarily small number (e.g. 1E-7), without significantly affecting the agreement in the testing tables. The other option would be to suppress the warnings for that test, but that could be messy. What do you think?