It seems to say that a slight aero increase outweighs a slight weight reduction, with the aero taking the edge starting around 15 kph and increasingly offering an advantage up to about 40 kph. So ... shave a few grams and so long as you are traveling slowly (like a serious climb) the weight advantage outweighs any aero advantage, but over 15 kph, aero is the better option.
it also show that even at 25 mph you are only saving 4 watts with better aero over lower weight .... and it doesn't take into account how much would be saved with much greater weight differences or much improved aero .... and since in the real world riders are much more of a drag than the bike, maybe a skinsuit and shoe covers are a better deal .... get a light bike and be a more aero rider.
And no matter what it is unlikely to be major wattage saved or lost.
I am not sure exactly how to translate .005 square meters reduction in frontal area ..... to really make sense this chart would need to show the difference between the two bikes in question---how many hundred grams less for the lighter bike---versus the aero reduction actually provided by the frame.
I have no idea what difference concealed cables and a little extra tube-shaping make in terms of actually lowering drag ...... but the chart does seem to say that you need to be doing 18-20 mph to get s significant effort reduction form aero, and that one hundred grams' weight savings is almost too little to measure.