Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed to be considered evidence. No examples, no methodology, etc. We don't know what "usable intelligence" means. You have taken the liberty of interpreting that in a particularly generous way.
> You can, right now!
I mean under controlled conditions. Why didn't any of these people in /r/remoteviewing sign up for the JREF $1 million prize? Or at least contact parapsychologists (e.g. Dean Radin or Daryl Bem) who would have been happy to facilitate rigorous public experiments? The best we have from experiments is statistical effects, e.g. guessing a coinflip correctly 51% of the time over large numbers of trials. Not the kind of large, obvious effects that "50% useable intelligence" or "85% accuracy" is hinting at.
So you need to try if you are serious about getting the truth. Think of it like doing the required pre-requisite work to understand a new topic. This is the same.
Why would you enter a competition you believe was a rigged attempt to disprove what you know through first hand experience to be real?
But trivial things that are always true does not describe the information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer.
> How come nobody can replicate this in less opaque settings?
You can, right now! You can try it yourself, see my other comments in this thread for resources.