I went about it by manipulating the starting image in Microsoft Paint, stretching, annotating, and generally manipulating it until the "biases" (like different scales for the vertical and horizontal axis) were gone and inferences that seemed "sorta justified" had been crudely visualized. Then I wrote text that put the imagery into words, attempting to functionally serialize the image (like being verbally precise where my visualization seemed coherent, and verbally ambiguous where my visualization seemed fuzzy, and giving each "cluster" a paragraph).

Based on memory I'd guess it was 90-250 minutes of pleasantly spent cognitive focus, depending on how you count? (Singularity stuff is just a hobby, not my day job, and I'm more of a fox than an hedgehog.) The image is hideous relative to "publication standards for a journal", and an honest methods section would mostly just read "look at the data, find a reasonable and interesting story, and do your best to tell the story well" and so it would probably not be reproducible by people who didn't have similar "epistemic tastes".

Despite the limits, if anyone wants to PM me an email address (plus a link back to this comment to remind me what I said here), I can forward the re-processed image to you so you can see it in all its craptastic glory.