Good catch. If there are n samples, and the lower half of them are equal to or less than 0.29, then a total mean of 0.82 would require that sum of the the upper half must be greater than 0.82n - 0.29n/2 = 0.675n. For n/2 numbers to sum to 0.675n, the mean of those numbers must be 1.35, which is decidedly above 100 %, proving at least one of the numbers must have been greater than 100 %.
It being a weighted average does sound like a reasonable explanation, though. A median of 0.29 and weighted mean of 0.82 is trivially possible given e.g. values (0.29, 0.29, 0.82) and weights (0, 0, 1).
Certainly possible if their calculation of income included non operating income otherwise excluded from revenue. (Eg. A gain on sale that dwarfs the underlying business). Such presentation is prevalent and a disclosure of “gross profit” isn’t uniformly required under GAAP
> Country Median Margin Average Margin Sample Size > South Africa 28.86% 82.37% 7
How can the average be 82% with a median being 28% without having one that is above 100%?