A few observations:

  - There is a weak correlation between expedition size and the probability of the fort surviving, so we should choose 13 dwarves.
   - Farmers and brewers are crucial to the survival of the city. Specialising in one type seems more efficient than having both. 6 farmers or 6 brewers guarantee survivial, but if you have a mixture you need at least 10. Farmers seem slightly better than brewers. 3 farmers give > 99 percent survival, but 4 brewers are needed to do as well. Warriors marginally increase survival odds when there are fewer farmers and brewers, but nothing else seems to have a positive impact.
- Miners seems to generate most of the value
   - Having one woodcutter offers a meaningfull boost, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit in haveing more. The boost is biggest at low coal values
   - Forts with 2 warriors seems to do best, though the gap between 1 and 2 seems to be modest, and maybe due to them haveing fewer lower value types.
   - Haveing 1 smith provides a modest beenfit, though haveing more is counterproductive.
   - Crafters are similar to warriors, except the effect is much smaller.
   - When no smiths or craftsmen are present then the for value is significantly reduced. 
   - Smiths and crafters do better when different resources are present.
 

 Which suggests something like this is needed to maximise value, subject to the constraint of minimising the risk of loseing the fort:
   - 6 farmers
   - 1 warrior
   - 1 crafter
   - 1 smith
   - 4 miners
   
   An alternative strategy which accepted a small risk of fort loss in exchange for makeing much more money would be:
   - 3 farmers
   - 1 warrior
   - 1 woodcutter
   - 1 crafter
   - 1 smith
   - 6 miners

Different resources seem anticorrelated, including coal level. 

All non-coal resources seem about equally common.

Coal is skewed so that higher values are much more common.

There is never less than 4 total coal level + quantity of other resources (perhaps due to dwarves not sending expeditions to anything less?). The coal skew is too much to be explained by this, but I haven't checked if it can explain the general anticorrelation.

Expedition size looks like 9+2d4, all professions equally common, didn't notice anything that would suggest non-randomness.

Larger expeditions tend to do a lot better than smaller ones.

Miners are in general by far the best profession for fort value, though not good for survival.

Farmers, Brewers and Warriors are the best professions for survival, especially Farmers.

All other professions look bad in terms of correlations with either measure of success.

However,  high value forts generally don't have a lot of missing professions, suggesting that some value is obtained by keeping around lower-effectiveness professions instead of min-maxing. Even crafters, who on average are by far the worst profession for fort value with our resources.

so... GuySrinivasan's proposal looks pretty good.

However:  the highest value forts with our non-coal resource combination in light forest, while they tend to have lots of miners, also tend to have a decent number of smiths. On the other hand, on average miners still get good value, and smiths bad value, even with these resources. Which suggests smiths might have some narrower requirements to get good value out of. Something to look into.

Among expeditions which were the best for their size and resource combinations, while they tend to have a lot of miners,  our resources are correlated with them having less miners, and more smiths. So, the hypothetical smith-based strategy might be especially viable with our specific resources.

Also warriors might be better for value in our biome than farmers, and while I see that several 1/1/1 Farmer/Brewer/Warrior expeditions failed in the Light Forest biome with our non-coal resources (and even with our value of 1 coal), I didn't see any 1/1/2 failures.

Also smiths might have synergy with warriors, both based on priors and based on, among top forts for their resources combos, smiths and warriors being relatively weakly anticorrelated compared with most other profession combos. (Brewers and miners are positively correlated among top forts though! hmm)

So, though I'd like to further analyze the smith strategy (and really, it would be more prudent to go with miners until I understand it) and also what exactly causes failure, I for now will go with:

Miners: 4
Smiths: 3
Woodcutters: 1
Farmers: 1
Brewers: 1
Warriors: 2
Crafters: 1

Edit: meh, looking at general stats (not specifically at these resources), combined with the initial evidence for smiths being really weak, was making me really nervous about smiths even before seeing yonge's report that more than one smith is counterproductive . 

Miners: 5
Smiths: 1
Woodcutters: 1
Farmers: 2
Brewers: 1
Warriors: 2
Crafters: 1

I expect to survive: in the Light Forest, 2 Farmers and 2 Warriors seem necessary for good odds and also sufficient for great odds. I suspect the Brewer is not needed, except that obviously the Brewer is needed. I expect my profits are not maximized without some rearrangement; I didn't try to account for which resources were present much at all.

My selection:
4 miners, 2 smiths, 1 woodcutter, 1 farmer, 1 brewer, 2 warriors, 2 crafters

Considerations:

Miners:
Miners are clearly the best at producing value, but, as others have pointed out, some forts seem to inexplicably die if they have a lot of miners. I'm too lazy to do some deeper analysis of whether some combinations of metals make this more or less likely or something, so I'm just gonna cap our miners at 4.

Food:
2 farmers + 2 warriors or 1 farmer + 1 brewer + 2 warriors seems to be (exactly) enough for such a small expedition in all cases, and a single brewer seems to be good for value

Value:
As many miners as possible, at least one crafter and smith.

Fuel:
We should be good with one woodcutter, in light forest at scarce coal.

for the last 2 dwarves, I'm going with one smith and one crafter. I'm not sure the 3rd smith does anything (one smith can make bronze gear, the other iron gear, while the silver goes to the crafters who maybe also get stuff from the woodcutter).

Miners sent 6

Smiths sent 2

Woodcutters sent 0

Farmers sent 1

Brewers sent 2

Warriors sent 1

Crafters sent 1

https://github.com/alex-ledovsky/my-notebooks/blob/master/Dwarves%20and%20Data%20Science.ipynb

Condition applied - Farmers + Brewers >= 3 (survivability = 99%)

4x Miner, 2x Woodcutter, 2x Warrior, 2x Crafter, 1x Brewer, 1x Farmer, 1x Smith

• We have enough data that it makes sense to filter out everything that isn't Light Forest Biome before doing any analysis.
• There seems (?) to be a threeway synergy between Warriors, Woodcutters and Crafters in this biome. (Ad hoc explanation: Woodcutters cut down trees, Crafters make things from the wood, Warriors stop the Elves from retaliating).
• More specifically, it seems like the two sources of income are wood-based goods (per the point above) and ore-based goods (Miners / Smiths / maybe Crafters here too). This is important because ore-based goods need Miners, and we can't have >4 Miners without exposing ourselves to more danger than I'm comfortable with. 
• Therefore, my strategy is to get as much as possible from ore-based goods (which seem more profitable in general, and don't suffer from diminishing returns w.r.t mandwarfpower), but fill in the gaps with wood-based goods.

I have decided to call my fort Treeslaughtered.