CSF results below 2 are considered more appropriate for offshore.
Not to sound like a party pooper, but over here sailboats fall into one of two categories: "marin" or "pas marin". It could be that the sailing culture is a bit different, but rather than fancy numbers, an experience-based rating system (rather than calculator-based) is probably more reliable, like: "Sails with the grace of my sofabed" or "sails very well". I don't know. In my experience too, sailboats either suck or don't suck. But adding such a value would require an interactive social-media type voting system added to the pages or something of the sort. Not to belittle the theory and calculations, after all engineering has its place, but after all is said and done, to use the language of the day, they do tend to either #fail or #win...
you know, you probably *could* add a facebook 'like' button under each record without much work, now that I think about it.
I don't think bm/lwl is the way to go, the water sees WLBeam/lwl, but since water line beam is not generally published I feel the closer approximation is Beam/LOA. Generally I recall seeing the ratio as LOA/beam so the number is greater than 1, same relationship expressed a different way. I suspect the preference for this format is that if you double the length of the vessel keeping the beam the same the ratio doubles too, whereas the other way it halves. Also the beam/Length ratio is asymptotic to zero and it's easier to lose a mental sense of what's going on as the ratio gets very small. As far as number of significant digits in Bal/Disp, 2 seems appropriate. For LOA/Beam or LWL/Beam, I would go 2 places past the decimal point.