if you're applying the concept of +7 SDs seriously here (let alone +20 SDs) I'm almost certain you're grossly misusing the concept of a standard deviation.
and since you're a coauthor of this post, it strongly suggests to me that the analysis done here is unreliable.
Standard deviations are used to characterize the spread around the mean of a normal distribution -- it is not intended to characterize the tails. This is why discussion around it tends to focus on the 1-2 SDs, where the bulk of the data is, and rarely 3-4 SDs -- it is rare to have the data (of sufficient size or low noise) to support meaningful interpretation of even 4 SDs with real-world data.
So in practice, using precise figures like 5, 7, or 20 SDs is misleading, because the tails aren't usually sufficiently characterized (and it certainly isn't with intelligence) -- all you can really say is that it's beyond the validated range of the test. It's like taking seriously a measurement of 151.887 when the instrument operates in integers up to 10 -- you're implying you're meaningfully operating on a level of precision and range that you don't realistically have. It comes across as incredibly careless with regard to statistical nuance and rigor.